[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Validator functions implementation
From: |
Andrew Janke |
Subject: |
Re: Validator functions implementation |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:33:47 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1 |
On 1/18/20 1:40 AM, Kai Torben Ohlhus wrote:
> On 1/17/20 1:23 PM, Andrew Janke wrote:
>> Hi Octave folks,
>>
>> Are you interested in having an Octave implementation of the Matlab
>> "validator" functions - mustBeNumeric(), mustBeNonempty(), and friends?
>> I have a Matlab-based implementation of them that wouldn't be hard to
>> port over, maybe in time for Octave 6.
>>
>> https://github.com/apjanke/matlab-validoozy
>>
>> Let me know if you're interested, and if so, whether you're interested
>> in my extensions (the "label" argument and the additional validators) or
>> just base Matlab-compatible implementations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andrew
>>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Nice to read about another nice "*oozy"-project =) At least the Matlab
> compatible set of functions was interesting. With non-compatible
> extensions Octave had some bad experience in the past and should only be
> added with some more care taking beforehand.
Okay. I'll whip up a subset that just matches the Matlab functionality.
> I noticed that those
> functions are part of a "new" (2017a) classdef syntax [1] but can also
> called individually.
Yep. I've found them very useful for direct calling even without the new
classdef syntax; that's primarily how I use them in Matlab, actually.
About half my function definitions start with "mustBe*" calls these days.
> If you have lots of spare time, please provide a patch with those
> functions using Octave m-style [2] in our tracker.
Done. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?57627
Cheers,
Andrew