Re: Numerical or other significant code in DEFUN functions

[John W. Eaton]

On 05/03/2013 09:11 AM, Mike Miller wrote:

> There is also an ellipj.m implementation mentioned in an earlier
> thread that I am planning on taking a look at. If the performance is
> not too much worse I would drop the C++ ellipj and add the m-file. Now
> that you mention adding the functions to liboctave, though, is that a
> compelling enough reason to keep this C++ implementation? Or if the
> m-file performs good enough is it ok to drop it?

If the performance of the .m file version is good, then I'd say use 
that, but I'd be surprised if that is the case, especially if you fix 
the loops in the C++ version to avoid unnecessary reference counting 
operations.

jwe