Re: modified residues() for matlab compatibility

[Ben Abbott]

On Oct 6, 2007, at 11:40 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:

> On  6-Oct-2007, Ben Abbott wrote:
>
> | After reading this a second time, I realized/inferred that Octave
> | allows test code to be embedded in the scripts. I'm happy to include
> | some testing in the new version of residue. Is the generally  
> desirable?
>
> Yes.
>
> jwe

I've attached a modified residue.m that includes modifications to the  
doc-string and the  addition of test scripts. In addition, the  
multiplicity vector, "e", which the prior change dropped has been  
reinstated.

The test scripts include the examples give in the doc-string as well  
as the original error which recently prompted much discussion and  
lead to my involvement. The accuracy of the residues may have been  
impacted. I had to lower the increase the permitted error in the test  
scripts in order for the scripts to pass ... at least relative to the  
test script in your prior email. Specifically

        -%! assert ((abs (r - [-2; 7; 3]) < 1e-7
        +%! assert ((abs (r - [-2; 7; 3]) < 1e-5

It occurs to me that I need to get set up with CVS so I can see the  
present state of things. That way I can send patches instead of  
sources ... unfortunately the web-site, http://www.octave.org/ 
download.html, is down. I'll get to that task when it's back up.

In any event, I've attached a new residue.m as well as the equivalent  
patch (which may have a unix/dos EOL problem). I've also attached a  
ChangeLog.

Some questions,

(1) Is there a naming convention for patches?
(2) Which variety of EOL is desired, or does it matter?

ChangeLog.txt
Description: Text document

residue.m
Description: Binary data

residue071006.patch
Description: Binary data