[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggestion on priorities for improving pytave
From: |
Colin Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Suggestion on priorities for improving pytave |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jul 2016 00:31:14 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 |
On 07/07/16 00:06, Abhinav Tripathi wrote:
Wouldn't it be the same as now? I mean if we just add a special case for
1x1 arrays then everything else remain as is, right?
At least for now, I think you're right.
pystore ("var_with_req_name", req_octave_value);
Its possible that we don't want to expose such a thing (although we may
want it internally).
Why? We don't really want the user to have to track a mental model of
variables in Python space. She should just have some Octave objects
(doubles, strings) and some @pyobjects (dicts, modules, whatever). And
then do things to those objects.
Maybe some kind of support for function kwargs as well? A scalar struct
to pass named parameters?
This could prove to be a bit tricky. I tried but couldn't use map
unpacking to call a python function.
Please file an issue for this kwargs stuff. It'll be important, even if
we can't do it right now.
Colin