[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #51310] firls.m modification to include all 4 FIR types, Hilbert transformer, and differentiator

[Vlad]

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #51310 (project octave):

> So, apart from the accuracy issues in (2) and the compatibility decision in
(3), is there anything else that needs to be done/fixed for it to be
completely functional?

No, unless some bugs crept up the code, the script is functional.

> Is there another set of data we can evaluate (2) against? Maybe a symbolic
routine for so.e simpler cases to which we can compare yours and matlabs
outputs?

I'm afraid the results will always come visibly close, but not quite. I think,
at this point, the question is: would it be preferred to mimick a wrong
answer, or improve it? (because, based on my tests, I dare say Matlab is
wrong, though not by much)

> Would maybe be worth get the package mmaintainers opinion on (3)

That's why I said it's a personal view. However, the results are correct for
types I and III, which would be the resulting FIRs after the increment, so the
results are the same, it's just that the script doesn't forcefully choose for
you. Consider the educational point of view: you're a teacher and want to show
your students what a type III or IV lowpass FIR looks like; could you do it
with Matlab's script?

At any rate, if this contravenes so much with the intended way the script is
meant to be working, then I'll change it. Maybe add an extra parameter?

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51310>

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