Re: 3.2.4 call for patches

[WMennerich]

I guess, binary compatibility is not touched since
the first patch should not change the behavior of existing parts:
It adds the possibility to create anonymous funtions from "matlab object"
methods (in the @-directory).
There can not be octave code out there which is incompatible since
the usage of function handles together with "matlab objects" was just not
possible.
Was this the kind of binary combatibility you ment?

WM




John W. Eaton-3 wrote:
> 
> On 25-Nov-2009, WMennerich wrote:
> 
> | Hi,
> | there are two patches, regarding the object / function handles stuff:
> | 
> | http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/0c7d84a65386
> | 
> | http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/cb0b21f34abc
> | 
> | Are they already applied? (In 3.2.3 (minGW) it does not seem so,
> regarding a
> | short test today)
> | 
> | Discussion about that topic:
> |
> http://old.nabble.com/Error-with-function-handles-of-object-methods-to24185732.html#a24185732
> 
> The second one should be OK.  I'm not sure about the first because it
> adds class methods.  Does that cause trouble for binary compatibility?
> If so, then it should not be applied because binary compatibility is a
> goal for a release series like 3.2.x.
> 
> jwe
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/3.2.4-call-for-patches-tp26440879p26525824.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.