[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #32261] another problem with object subscript references - maybe related to #32182

[John W. Eaton]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #32261 (project octave):

You say

+vertabim+
Obviously, cj.val{1}.val{1} and tmp.val{1} should return the same data


but it is not at all obvious to me what should happen with these large
structures in which all the complexity of the structure appears to be
exposed.

It may be obvious to you, because you are quite familiar with the data
structures and understand what is supposed to be happening.

To help us debug these problems, it would help a lot if you were very
explicit in stating exactly what things are not as you expect, and also
showing us precisely what you do expect.

For example, instead of just saying that the structure is not a proper cfg_*
object, tell us precisely which fields are not initialized, and perhaps how
that can happen.  As far as I know, a class structure can only be initialized
by a call to the constructor for the class.  So if there are elements that
should be class objects but are not, then point that out specifically.  If
there are elements that are not initialized as you expect, but they are class
objects, then I guess that happens because the constructor is called in some
way that you are not expecting.  If so, perhaps you can identify which path
through the constructor must have occurred in order to generate the given
structure.  I can maybe figure this out for simple examples, but I do not have
the time to understand all of matlabbatch in order to debug a problem.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?32261>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/