|
From: | David Bateman |
Subject: | Re: min and max functions |
Date: | Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:08:26 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081018) |
John W. Eaton wrote:
Well yes in a sense it would make sense to get rid of them, though that might involve a little work to get the methods that only work on 2D arrays implemented in the NDArray class (eg solve). However, there is also some code in octave-forge that depends on Array2 as it was written prior to NDArray's notably my galois field and fixed point classes, and they would have to also be rewritten if the Array2 classes were dropped.Thinking about this a little more, is the Matrix class in the wrong spot in the hierarchy? Is it necessary to have the Array2 and MArray2 classes now (they really only exist for historical reasons as Octave did not originally have N-d arrays)? Should the Matrix class just be an NDArray object with the added constraint that there are only two dimensions? If so, what would be the right way to enforce that?
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that it might be more work than originally thought and have other unwanted consequences for external code.
D. -- David Bateman address@hiddenMotorola 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |