[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #54523] doc: link unmkpp with mkpp

[Mike Miller]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #54523 (project octave):

I have a few style suggestions for this change. The code example should be
written in Octave coding style (spaces around operators, after commas, after
function names). It should not be indented from the left, and you are missing
a @example block declaration. Something like this


## @example
## @group
## [x, p, n, k, d] = unmkpp (pp)
## pp2  = mkpp (x, p, d)
## fn = fieldnames (pp2);
## for i = 1:numel (fn)
##   assert (pp2.(fn{i}), pp.(fn{i}));
## endfor
## @end group
## @end example


>From a readability perspective, I think it would help if you explicitly said
in words what the 'assert' is attempting to prove. For someone unfamiliar with
these functions (like me), I don't think it's very clear that your example is
trying to show "here is how the deconstructed piecewise polynomial structure
can be constructed back again into an equivalent structure". Maybe even
writing some text and eliminating the distraction of the for loop would be
clearer.

The commit message should include both a summary line, with (bug #54523)
appended, and a details line with something like


* unmkpp.m: Add example to doc string showing relationship with mkpp.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?54523>

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