octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Merging Octave and Octave-Forge?


From: Thomas Weber
Subject: Re: Merging Octave and Octave-Forge?
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:53:19 +0200

Am Dienstag, den 26.08.2008, 17:23 -0400 schrieb John W. Eaton:
> On 26-Aug-2008, Levente Torok wrote:
> 
> | Perheps because Function cov() works differently on matlab and on
> | octave, 
> 
> In what way?  Has this been discussed before?

They provide a package where NaN values are ignored during calculations.
cov.m is one place where they needed to change the code. In case where
cov in Octave and Matlab differed, they chose the Octave way

No, I don't use the package, but it's clearly explained in the README
and the code for cov.m.


> | Alois Schloegl and Matthew W. Roberts replaced the octave version with its 
> own version in 
> | the extra/nan-1.0.6 package.
> | In the installation README file, the authors suggests us to completely 
> overwrite 
> | the original /m/statistics/base/*.m,*.oct files.
> | This can be seen as an obstructive and collabortive act on behalf of 
> octave-forgers.
> 
> I think we should discourage people writing packages from replacing
> core functions.  But I don't see that we can stop them from doing it.

I disagree. It's quite obvious they had a need for treating NaNs as
missing values instead of usual calculation rules.

If you don't want that behaviour, don't install the package. The
package's documentation is totally clear about the package's effects.


> Perhaps Octave should warn about duplicate functions in the load-path?

Why? Sorry, but if people install stuff blindly, the only sensible
resolution is shipping brain-1.0.0.

And I routinely copy functions from Octave into the current directory to
change them (easist way for bug finding and fixing, either in my or
Octave's code.)

        Thomas



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]