[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #36372] Improved ranks.m included:

[Dave Goel]

Follow-up Comment #23, bug #36372 (project octave):

Hi Lachlan,

Thanks for these hints. I have modified my code here to comply with these as
well.

Regarding why we need reverse ordinal, I understand your points about
leanness, and am fine one way or the other if Octave decides to not include
it. In fact, I suspect the user can do some careful matrix reverses to get
reverse ordinal out of ordinal. 

My own reasons for inclusion would be:

(1) Completeness. It is a natural counterpart to ordinal. 
(2) I actually need this for a project of mine. In fact, of the four ranking
schemes, this is the one most naturally suited for that case. Implementing
this is how I got started on this whole ranks project in the first place.

Many thanks again,
Dave



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?36372>

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