On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Alois Schlögl <[email protected]> wrote: > However, if there is no agreement that having > "free toolboxes for matlab" is a worthwhile goal, it would expect similar > opposition than trying to make the source code compatible.
I think the opposition is that your proposing rewriting octave code for the sole purpose of compatibility with a translator that targets octave. The problem I have with these changes is that some of them defeat useful semantics that many of us view as improvements over matlab's language. Don't take it too harshly. Sanitizing input is a valid way to approach this sort of problem. I think you just underestimated how much others may like octave's extensions. > The latter would be much easier to realize than using a parser, I think. It may seem easier at first. The problem is that I don't think there is any way to validate that the translated code will actually work in Matlab without running it in Matlab. In the long run a fully working parser could be modified to compile m files directly to oct files. Who needs JIT then? --judd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
