Re: regarding location of Matlab compatible polygon functions

[PhilipNienhuis]

LachlanA wrote
> 
> PhilipNienhuis wrote
>> Your first argument ("Matlab ... good enough") is, well, a good opinion.
>> 
>> But that second argument, "one less thing to argue about", can also be 
>> perceived as a way to simply evade discussion.
>> Extending that a little, what's the whole point of Octave when "Matlab 
>> is good enough" ? If all of us here just stop with Octave we'd be free 
>> of any arguing whatsoever.
> <snip>
> I have not opinion on this particular package, but I like the idea that
> the "default" is to mirror Matlab's toolboxes, but if a package maintainer
> and/or code contributor believes that a deviation is justified then that
> should be precluded.

Yes, if we were starting from scratch. mimicking Matlab would have been a
viable start. Matlab's way is good enough if there is nothing else yet.
Several OF packages match Matlab toolboxes and I have no issue with that.

But the situation is that we are also already blessed with a small
collection of good quality packages not matching Matlab toolboxes that are
more comprehensive and self-contained than what Matlab has on offer. I find
Octave much better in that respect.

Attempts to erode that self-containedness in those existing Octave packages,
especially if just for the sake of some Matlab compatibility notion nowhere
formally or informally specified in the Octave project, seem quite
counterproductive to me.

In the case at hand, the geometry package even did contain the function in
question; it was removed a while ago for reasons other than discussed here.
The geometry package maintainer and I already discussed replacement
functions some time ago and I even had a working replacement skeleton lying
around.

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Re-regarding-location-of-Matlab-compatible-polygon-functions-tp4676164p4676233.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.