Re: [OctDev] Ocatve release 2.1.51 and Octave-Forge

[David B. <Dav...@mo...>]

I agree that the changes I made for 2.1.51 make the code crufty, and I 
agree that a minimum version is the best way to handle the issue. However,
its too brutal to say the next version has to have 2.1.51, as some of the
changes in 2.1.51 can still be considered experimental. What I'd suggest 
is keeping the 2.1.36 limit, and then the octave-forge release in a years
time ups this to 2.1.51, and removes the cruft...

Cheers
David


According to pki...@us... <pki...@us...> (on 11/18/03):
> On 17 Nov 2003 at 21:30, John W. Eaton wrote:
> 
> > My preference would be to not clutter the sources with these kinds of
> > macros/tests and instead simply state that a minimum version of Octave
> > is required to use octave-forge.  I understand doing that could cause
> > some trouble, but I think in the long run we will be better off.
> 
> That was too painful the last time I tried it (circa 2.1.42).  I agree
> though, that it even makes new code look crufty.
> 
> Paul Kienzle
> pki...@us...
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF. Net email is sponsored by: GoToMyPC
> GoToMyPC is the fast, easy and secure way to access your computer from
> any Web browser or wireless device. Click here to Try it Free!
> https://www.gotomypc.com/tr/OSDN/AW/Q4_2003/t/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl
> _______________________________________________
> Octave-dev mailing list
> Oct...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

-- 
David Bateman                                Dav...@mo...
Motorola CRM                                 +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary