[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: named arguments
From: |
fork |
Subject: |
Re: named arguments |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:12:14 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) |
John W. Eaton <jwe <at> octave.org> writes:
> Even if TMW just implements a different way of handling
> named arguments that is not directly in conflict with what we do,
Is there any reason to believe they are going to do so in the nearish future?
Real question, not rhetorical -- I don't know where to look for this info..
> Optional makes no sense. Now you are requiring someone to have a
> version of Octave compiled or run with the right switches in order to
> run your code?
Ok, don't make it optional. ;) But don't break backwards compatibility and you
will catch old-style matlab compatibility fine.
- Re: named arguments, (continued)
- Re: named arguments, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Olaf Till, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Michael Goffioul, 2012/03/16
- RE: named arguments, Damian Harty, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, fork, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments,
fork <=
- Re: named arguments, Miguel Bazdresch, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Francesco Potortì, 2012/03/17
- Re: named arguments, CdeMills, 2012/03/16