Re: Suggestion on priorities for improving pytave

[Colin Macdonald]

On 07/07/16 00:06, Abhinav Tripathi wrote:
> Wouldn't it be the same as now? I mean if we just add a special case for
> 1x1 arrays then everything else remain as is, right?

At least for now, I think you're right.

> pystore ("var_with_req_name", req_octave_value);

Its possible that we don't want to expose such a thing (although we may 
want it internally).

Why?  We don't really want the user to have to track a mental model of 
variables in Python space.  She should just have some Octave objects 
(doubles, strings) and some @pyobjects (dicts, modules, whatever).  And 
then do things to those objects.

>     Maybe some kind of support for function kwargs as well? A scalar struct
>     to pass named parameters?
>
> This could prove to be a bit tricky. I tried but couldn't use map
> unpacking to call a python function.

Please file an issue for this kwargs stuff.  It'll be important, even if 
we can't do it right now.

Colin