|
From: | John W. Eaton |
Subject: | Re: Numerical or other significant code in DEFUN functions |
Date: | Fri, 03 May 2013 10:41:30 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11 |
On 05/03/2013 09:11 AM, Mike Miller wrote:
There is also an ellipj.m implementation mentioned in an earlier thread that I am planning on taking a look at. If the performance is not too much worse I would drop the C++ ellipj and add the m-file. Now that you mention adding the functions to liboctave, though, is that a compelling enough reason to keep this C++ implementation? Or if the m-file performs good enough is it ok to drop it?
If the performance of the .m file version is good, then I'd say use that, but I'd be surprised if that is the case, especially if you fix the loops in the C++ version to avoid unnecessary reference counting operations.
jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |