matpower-pip maintainer here. Current development is using Octave 5.2.0-w64. But, as mentioned earlier, the latest Ubuntu comes with Octave 6.2. Thus, I might end up using Octave 6.2.
Since I also use Python, using package naming might be nicer from my point of view. So I also vote *A*, but does this version retain backward compatibility? At least for basic usage snippets. _ For package naming, I prefer to use *C*, but if Octave supports aliasing like what Python does (import matpower as mp), I prefer *D.* On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 4:39 PM Richard Lincoln <r.w.linc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Until recently I was stuck with GNU Octave 4.4 when compiling to > WebAssembly for https://matpower.app. However, I can now compile Octave > 7.2 with the latest version of Emscripten (3.1.24). I typically use Ubuntu > 20.04 LTS (focal) for development and Docker base images. It comes with > Octave 5.2. However, the latest LTS release is 22.04 (jammy) and it comes > with Octave 6.4: > > > https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=octave&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all > > I my experience, Octave is very stable and there are many options > available (snaps, flatpak, PPAs) for installing the latest version. I vote > *A*, requiring Octave 6.2 or later. > > The MATLAB language has a particularly terse syntax. Other than perhaps > Perl, I can't think of a popular language that allows so much to be > expressed with so few characters. For this reason I think mp should be > the package name and vote *C*. The only naming conflicts that come to > mind might be something related to OpenMP or message passing or multiple > precision arithmetic. > > Richard > > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 23:59, Ray Daniel Zimmerman <r...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > >> Hi MATPOWER Developers, >> >> I need your feedback on a quick question. >> >> I’m working on finalizing things for a beta release of what amounts to a >> nearly complete re-write of MATPOWER for version 8.0. More on that soon. >> >> Since this new version defines tons of new classes, I thought it would be >> nice to put them all inside a package, probably named mp or matpower, to >> avoid namespace pollution. For those who don’t know, a package is simply a >> folder whose name begins with a ‘+’, like ‘+mp’. If that folder is in >> your path, any class inside it, such as myclass.m can be accessed as >> mp.myclass. >> >> The issue is that, for Octave users, putting the new MATPOWER classes >> inside a package will require Octave 6.2.0 (released Feb 2021) or later, >> otherwise we could support Octave 5.2.0 (released Jan 2020) or later. >> >> *So the question for you MATPOWER/Octave users is …* >> >> *What is your preference?* >> A. Require Octave 6.2.0 or later and put the new classes in its own >> package. *OR* >> B. Support Octave 5.2.0 and leave all of the new classes in the main >> namespace. >> >> *And a secondary question, for anyone who has an opinion, is …* >> >> *Which is the better name for the package, should we choose to go that >> route?* >> C. mp - short and convenient to use *OR* >> D. matpower - longer, but better at avoiding name collisions >> >> This is a major update with massive changes and my goal is to introduce a >> framework that will provide a solid foundation for MATPOWER development for >> years/decades to come. >> >> Any feedback or comments are appreciated. Oh, and I’ll probably post this >> to the MATPOWER-L discussion group too, just to get a response from a >> larger audience if possible. So sorry for the duplicates for those on both >> lists. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ray >> >> -- Best Regards, Muhammad Yasirroni, S.T. Research Assistant in Electrical Engineering (Electrical Power System) Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Engineering Faculty, Universitas Gadjah Mada, D.I.Yogyakarta, Indonesia
