On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 09:54:11AM +0200, c. wrote: > > On 29 Jun 2011, at 09:16, Olaf Till wrote: > > > I'm not ready, but: > > > > Your example with cell2cell works for me, too: > > is your version of cell2cell the same as in the repository? > > > octave:5> function prova () > >> m = 1; n = 1; > >> plabels = cell2cell (num2cell ((1:n).'), 1); > >> m > >> endfunction > > octave:6> prova > > m = 1 > > octave:7> > > > > Which Octave version do you use? > > mercurial sources cloned and built yesterday > > > And your patch seems to change much. Could you make it easier for me > > and tell me what was the change which is needed to fix the supposed > > bug, and what was actually wrong before? > > sorry, I got carried away with changing indentation ;) > > The problem seemed to be cell2cell exiting at a poit where it would leave > Octave's state garbled. > > In order to debug this I tried to rewrite the structure of the code so to > have a single return > (which is the suggested Octave coding style). This alone seemed to do the > trick for me so I submitted the patch ;) > > > > Olaf > > c.
I'd try to clarify first if indeed having a single return point is considered mandatory or if garbling the workspace if returning from within a block could be considered a bug in Octave. It worked with previous Octave versions, and surely cell2cell is not the only place where such a way to return was chosen. Olaf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
