Re: Creating a standalone executable

[JD Cole]

Yes, that is why I was curious about the history of install_ops/_types.

Just to clear something up, when I'm performing octave_value addition, 
as in the code snippet below, this uses liboctinterp operators, not 
liboctave operators?

The way I "understand" now I thought that ov operators were all defined 
in liboctave, so in the following code I shouldn't need functionality 
from liboctinterp, right? (I admit I'm a bit confused at this point.)

JD

| source code (a.cc)
> | =========
> | #include <octave/oct.h>
> | #include <octave/ops.h>
> | #include <iostream>
> | 
> | using namespace std;
> | 
> | int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> | {
> |   install_types ();
> |   install_ops ();
> |   octave_value a(10.0),b(20.0),c;
> | 
> |   c = a + b;
> | 
> |   c.print(cout);
> |  
> |   return (0);
> | }


John W. Eaton wrote:

> On 18-Dec-2002, JD Cole <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> | This may be a C++ ignorant question, but, what was the motivation behind 
> | installing operators/types "manually" rather than having them 
> | instantiated in the type class?
>
> Mixed-type operations, I think.
>
> But I think it would still be possible to have them installed
> automatically, using some static object -- the constructor of the
> object would call the appropriate function for installing the
> operators defined in the file where the static object appears.  The
> constructor for the static object would be called automatically when
> the object is loaded.  That only leaves the question of ensuring that
> everything is initialized in the proper order (probably not too hard
> to do, but would require some care).  But as Paul points out, maybe
> you don't want to initialize all of this every time you use
> liboctinterp?
>
> jwe
>
>