On 29 Jun 2011, at 11:02, Olaf Till wrote: > I'd try to clarify first if indeed having a single return point is > considered mandatory
It sure isn't mandatory in Octave-Forge where coding guidelines are not as strict as in Octave core. On the other hand I do find it useful when debugging ... > or if garbling the workspace if returning from > within a block could be considered a bug in Octave. This should probably be discussed on the Octave maintainers ML, I am not qualified enough to answer this question. > It worked with > previous Octave versions, and surely cell2cell is not the only place > where such a way to return was chosen. I would like to clarify that I don't think multiple return points where the CAUSE of the bug, it is a completely legitimate choice and should work. I just changed the structure to make it easier FOR ME to understand the function flow, and it happened that this removed the error which I, therefore, presume was in one of the lines of code that I changed. Although I did not learn what exactly the error was, as I had a working version of the function I went on and proposed the patch. I agree that studying further to understand the real source of the error is a better approach and encourage you to do so. > Olaf c. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
