Re: [Changeset]: Documentation for the OOP code of Octave

[David Bateman]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> Do you have a specific reason for delaying checking in the change?
> From what I read, it could use some editing, but so could the rest of
> the manual so I don't see a problem with checking it in now and
> improving it later.
>
> I already checked in the inferiorto/superiorto change separately.

The only reason was that I didn't like checking in examples/polynomial 
and then later being required to move it to examples/@polynomial. Though 
as you seem happy with it as is, I checked in it..

D.

--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
35 rue Gambetta                              +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home)
92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE            +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)