Jaroslav Hajek wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Stickel<jjstic...@vcn.com> wrote: >> I just checked in a small bug fix to the nelder_mead_min function >> regarding some trouble with parsing the list or cell arguments. Someone >> more familiar with the function might want to check that I didn't >> break anything. I did check that the test script test_nelder_mead_min_1 >> passes all tests.
I found that my fix was not quite right. I have checked in another change. >> >> Many of the minimization functions make use of lists in their argument >> passing. This results in the warning >> >> warning: list objects are deprecated; use cell arrays instead >> >> It would be helpful if the authors of these functions could clean the >> functions up to use exclusively cell arrays. >> >> One last note: I noticed that someone ('highegg') recently changed the >> names of fminunc and fzero to fminunc_compat and fzero_compat. Why the >> name change? Wouldn't Matlab compatibility be better achieved by using >> exactly the same name used in Matlab? I use fminunc in some of work, >> including the data smoothing functions I contributed to the data >> smoothing package. >> > > the change is due to the fact that fminunc and fzero are now in core > Octave, so to avoid a name clash. > I think Octave's fzero is more Matlab compatible than the one in > OctaveForge, but otherwise roughly equivalent in functionality, so > maybe fzero_compat can be dropped. fminunc_compat (former fminunc) is > a mere wrapper to minimize. > OK, good to know about fminunc and fzero in octave proper. I know that the old fminunc was a wrapper for minimize, but I preferred the user interface of fminunc. I seem to have found a bug for the new fminunc that I will report on the bugs list. BTW, I find it confusing that optimization functions are split between Octave and the octave-forge package. At one point, I thought there was a plan to keep associated functions together, either all in Octave or in the appropriate octave-forge package. I guess the split remains more development oriented: polished functions make it to Octave where as rough contributions remain in octave-forge. Regards, Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev