Re: pending dataframe-1.2.0 release

[Oliver Heimlich]

On 15.08.2017 13:00, Olaf Till wrote:
> - The coding style deviates much from Octave, e.g. in the positioning
>   of license text and help text, in the choice of comment signs, and
>   in using unqualified 'end' (instead of e.g. 'endif'). The reason
>   seems to be trying to be Matlab compatible. Why is that so? In a
>   'community' package, I think we should try to adher to Octaves
>   coding style.

On 20.08.2017 17:15, Olaf Till wrote:
...
> The rest is ok for the release (though we didn't as yet discuss the
> 'Matlab oriented coding style' issue further).

IMO, a package should be allowed to maintain Matlab compatibility.  In
the end this can only be beneficial to the end user at a low cost.

If you wanted to have Matlab compatibility, but stick to Octave's syntax
/ coding style, that is quite an overhead during development.  For
example, look at the doctest package:  The doctest package uses Texinfo
documentation and has to convert all m-files to make a Matlab package.
If one additionally used Octave-only syntax, that would be quite an
effort to keep support for Matlab.

Oliver