<etienne <at> isr.ist.utl.pt>
2007-07-03 05:50:53 GMT
On Mon, July 2, 2007 12:31, David Bateman wrote:
# etienne <at> isr.ist.utl.pt wrote:
#> Hi David,
#> On Sat, June 30, 2007 16:00, David Bateman wrote:
#> # I have no idea if the attached function is really useful, but it is a
#> it would be useful at least for me. I would have adopted if it had been around when
#> I first wrote a similar function "result = loop_add (add_to_what, add_where, add_what)".
#> The answer to your question depends more on users than maintainers, doesn't it?
# Yes, but maintainers are also users as well .... In any case the
# main issue I see is that this isn't a builtin version and so might be
# limited in speed relative to the matlab version. Though if it is
# adequate I see no reason to write it as an oct-file. In any case if it
# does need to be written as an Octave file, having a good m-file version
# that is consistent with the matlab version is a good first step.
# Unfortunately I'm traveling at the moment and can not test this code
# against matlab for speed. Frankly if its less that a factor of 5 slower
# than matlab I see no reason to write it as an oct-file..
I would say that correct but slow code is better than no code at all.