tor, 22 12 2011 kl. 09:24 -0500, skrev Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso: > On 22 December 2011 07:33, Arno Onken <asn...@asnelt.org> wrote: > > > Should kmeans be backward compatible with 3.2.4? > > I don't think it should be. And Søren's fix to replace [~, foo] = > bar() with [tmp, foo] = bar() isn't quite equivalent. Although I don't > think min does this, a function can know if an output parameter was > requested or not and avoid computing it if it wasn't.
I really don't think this type of performance tweaks makes much (if any) difference in real life. So I really think it is up to the package maintainer to decide if backwards compatibility is important or not. Personally, I don't care, but I really don't think the change in question will have any impact on performance (this is not in anyway the bottleneck of the function). Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Write once. Port to many. Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
