Re: Merging Octave and Octave-Forge?

[Bill Denney]

Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Thomas Weber
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>   
>> I disagree. It's quite obvious they had a need for treating NaNs as
>> missing values instead of usual calculation rules.
>>
>> If you don't want that behaviour, don't install the package. The
>> package's documentation is totally clear about the package's effects
>
> Why didn't they follow the "convention" of Matlab's stat toolbox, and create
> nancov, nancor etc? Given that there is nansum, nanstd, nanmean...
> That way, both kinds of functions could be used at once.
I believe that the nan* functions are newer than our nan package.  It's
probably not a bad idea to convert the names, though.

Have a good day,

Bill