octave-dev

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

[<pki...@us...>]

I've added support for TYPEID_HAS_CLASS and class names for
everything that defines a type (ov-re-tri, comm, sparse, symbolic,
dispatch). Everything compiles, and the meager tests that I have in
place run, except that sparse is broken.

Other than fixing sparse, what else do we want to go into
this release?

Oops!  It occurs to me that the current octave version should be the
unmarked form!  So instead of HAVE_ND_ARRAY it should be
MISSING_ND_ARRAY and instead of TYPEID_HAS_CLASS it
should be MISSING_TYPEID_CLASS, or whatever the GNU standard
is for negative tests.  If nothing else I should have used
HAVE_TYPEID_CLASS rather than TYPEID_HAS_CLASS.  Feel
free to fix it.

Paul Kienzle
pki...@us...

On 17 Nov 2003 at 11:29, David Bateman wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> We need a new release of Octave-Forge for 2.1.51 due to numereous changes.
> I've already made some of the necessary changes to the CVS previous for
> the fortran_indexing, etc flags. However I know of at least one other 
> change that hasn't been implemented that needs to be before a release,
> and perhaps there are other. The change I know about is that all of the
> registered types need this change made

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

[<pki...@us...>]

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...

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