[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Further on MEX
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: Further on MEX |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:33:19 -0500 |
On 7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| We'd also then need to use the same mex extensions as matlab itself
| does though.
Why? Can't you just rename the files to change the extension when you
install them?
The only reason for having the different extensions is so that MEX
files for multiple platforms can be installed in the saem directory.
Doing that causes trouble for people packaging Octave, doesn't it?
The assumption is that binary files go in specific directories
(/usr/lib or /usr/libexec instead of /usr/share). But we still have
problems because of the way the loadpath works (the assumption being
that you can add a package in Matlab by adding a directory to the
path).
jwe
- Re: Further on MEX, (continued)
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/06
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Aravindh Krishnamoorthy, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, Thomas Weber, 2009/01/08
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/27
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/07
- Re: Further on MEX, David Bateman, 2009/01/06
Re: Further on MEX, Michael Goffioul, 2009/01/04