Re: Merging Octave and Octave-Forge?

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Bill Denney <address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>

Silly me - I could have guessed that :)

> Have a good day,

same to you

>
> Bill
>



-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz