[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: named arguments
From: |
Miguel Bazdresch |
Subject: |
Re: named arguments |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2012 20:50:07 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120217 Thunderbird/10.0.2 |
On 03/16/2012 01:02 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
It's not silly. Changes in Matlab have prompted us to make changes to
Octave.
I'd love to have named arguments, but I understand and respect jwe's
reasons for not allowing them. I guess we'll get them when TMW
implements them :)
I'd just like to point out that Octave syntax is, in fact, a superset of
(and different from) Matlab's. Maybe I'm more atuned to this than most,
since some of my students submit code that they tested in Matlab but I
run it in Octave.
For example, Octave allows this:
b=[1 2 3];
b'(:)'
and this
(b>0)(1:2)
Matlab barfs in these two cases (I hope my memory is not failing me
here). There are even more differences in package functions.
In these examples, I don't think we're running a huge risk of TMW
defining this syntax to mean something radically different from what
we're doing. However, the differences are there.
--
Miguel Bazdresch
- Re: named arguments, (continued)
- Re: named arguments, Olaf Till, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Michael Goffioul, 2012/03/16
- RE: named arguments, Damian Harty, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, fork, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, John W. Eaton, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments, fork, 2012/03/16
- Re: named arguments,
Miguel Bazdresch <=
- Re: named arguments, Francesco Potortì, 2012/03/17
- Re: named arguments, CdeMills, 2012/03/16