[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #9924] Suggestion for a memory() function

[Markus Mützel]

Follow-up Comment #25, patch #9924 (project octave):

I moved reading the pseudo files on Linux to a local function and removed some
variables that are no longer used in patch9924_memory_v2.patch. It still
applies on top of patch9924_wmemory.patch.

Additionally, I added some documentation in patch9924_memory_doc.patch. I am
not sure I used the correct terminology and what I wrote makes at least have
sense. A review and corrections would be very welcome.
I hope to also have covered the potential issue Lars mentioned in comment #23
correctly.

There is no "Ready to Review" status on the patch tracker. So I'll leave the
status on "In Progress". Although I think most of the work should be finished
that is necessary for an initial push to the repository.

(file #49159, file #49160)
    _______________________________________________________

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: patch9924_memory_v2.patch      Size:9 KB
    <https://savannah.gnu.org/file/patch9924_memory_v2.patch?file_id=49159>

File name: patch9924_memory_doc.patch     Size:2 KB
    <https://savannah.gnu.org/file/patch9924_memory_doc.patch?file_id=49160>



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?9924>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via Savannah
  https://savannah.gnu.org/