Re: [CHANGESET]: First attempt at a single precision type.

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 28-Apr-2008, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | So what should we do? Do promotion of "single" to "double" for all mixed
> | operations as I currently implemented it? Change only the subsasgn
> | operator for consistency with matlab? Or go the whole way and duplicate
> | matlab's behavior? I suspect we'll probably have to duplicate matlab's
> | behavior in something as basic as this otherwise we'll end up with a lot
> | of odd differences between the behavior of a script run in Matlab or in
> | Octave.. John whats your opinion?
>
> I expect that we will need to be compatible here, though I don't see
> that we must require the double operand of a mixed int/double
> operation to be a scalar. 
Ok, I'll do it that way.

>  Likewise, I see no reason to omit the mixed
> int/single operations if it is easy to get them (and I think it should
> be relatively easy, though it does add somewhat to the bloat).
>   
Grrrrr, unfortunately as the numeric conversion method is now in the
double matrix classes, this means that we have to define all of the
int/single operators, rather than promote the single to a double and use
the double/int operators!!! Bloat indeed..

D.

-- 
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary