Re: merge classdef to default?

[John W. Eaton]

On 07/30/2013 11:40 AM, Michael Goffioul wrote:

> That's a difficult decision. But if the classdef support was not part of
> the original feature list, I'd say leave it for later. I don't think  it
> would cause any harm to merge, most of the code is independent from the
> rest of octave, except for the package support which touched the
> load-path and symbol-table aspects.

OK, that's a reason to wait until later I guess as this part hasn't had 
much testing.  But we are still a while away from the release, so I 
think that it would get sufficient testing if we merged soon.

> The problem is indeed to have only
> partial classdef support and advertise it. I'm not opposed to the merge,
> bug if it's to get tons of bug report about things not being
> supported/implemented, then no thanks.

I expect we would see some bug reports.

> Maybe we could add a big fat warning, whenever some aspects of classdef
> are being used, that say this is WIP and incomplete, please don't report
> any bugs about unimplemented features?

I'm not sure I'd mind those too much.  At least it would tell us what 
features people use.  But I suppose it would be easy enough to add a 
"classdef support is experimental and incomplete" warning when classdef 
constructs are parsed.

jwe