RE: FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER

[Russ Patterson]

Hi Ray,

 

My preference would be to use your suggested package approach (and require 
Octave 6.2.0 or later).  Anyone who really needs and older version of Octave is 
likely savy enough to run simultaneous versions without trouble.

 

Best regards,

russ

 

From: bounce-126942489-88411...@list.cornell.edu 
 On Behalf Of Ray Daniel Zimmerman
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:02 AM
To: MATPOWER-L 
Subject: FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER

 

Hi MATPOWER Users, 

 

I need your feedback on a quick question.

 

I’m working on finalizing things for a beta release of what amounts to a nearly 
complete re-write of MATPOWER for version 8.0. More on that soon.

 

Since this new version defines tons of new classes, I thought it would be nice 
to put them all inside a package, probably named mp or matpower, to avoid 
namespace pollution. For those who don’t know, a package is simply a folder 
whose name begins with a ‘+’, like ‘+mp’. If that folder is in your path, any 
class inside it, such as myclass.m can be accessed as mp.myclass.

 

The issue is that, for Octave users, putting the new MATPOWER classes inside a 
package will require Octave 6.2.0 (released Feb 2021) or later, otherwise we 
could support Octave 5.2.0 (released Jan 2020) or later.

 

So the question for you MATPOWER/Octave users is …

 

What is your preference?

A. Require Octave 6.2.0 or later and put the new classes in its own package.  OR

B. Support Octave 5.2.0 and leave all of the new classes in the main namespace.

 

And a secondary question, for anyone who has an opinion, is …

 

Which is the better name for the package, should we choose to go that route?

C. mp - short and convenient to use  OR

D. matpower - longer, but better at avoiding name collisions

 

This is a major update with massive changes and my goal is to introduce a 
framework that will provide a solid foundation for MATPOWER development for 
years/decades to come.

 

Any feedback or comments are appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Ray

 

Re: FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER

[deepak kumar chowdhury]

Hello Ray,
I like to use MANPOWER. I am doing my research work on MANPOWER. I need
more information regarding the Manpower manual.
Thank You
Regards,
deepak



On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 8:05 PM Russ Patterson  wrote:

> Hi Ray,
>
>
>
> My preference would be to use your suggested package approach (and require
> Octave 6.2.0 or later).  Anyone who really needs and older version of
> Octave is likely savy enough to run simultaneous versions without trouble.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> russ
>
>
>
> *From:* bounce-126942489-88411...@list.cornell.edu <
> bounce-126942489-88411...@list.cornell.edu> *On Behalf Of *Ray Daniel
> Zimmerman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:02 AM
> *To:* MATPOWER-L 
> *Subject:* FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER
>
>
>
> Hi MATPOWER Users,
>
>
>
> I need your feedback on a quick question.
>
>
>
> I’m working on finalizing things for a beta release of what amounts to a
> nearly complete re-write of MATPOWER for version 8.0. More on that soon.
>
>
>
> Since this new version defines tons of new classes, I thought it would be
> nice to put them all inside a package, probably named mp or matpower, to
> avoid namespace pollution. For those who don’t know, a package is simply a
> folder whose name begins with a ‘+’, like ‘+mp’. If that folder is in
> your path, any class inside it, such as myclass.m can be accessed as
> mp.myclass.
>
>
>
> The issue is that, for Octave users, putting the new MATPOWER classes
> inside a package will require Octave 6.2.0 (released Feb 2021) or later,
> otherwise we could support Octave 5.2.0 (released Jan 2020) or later.
>
>
>
> *So the question for you MATPOWER/Octave users is …*
>
>
>
> *What is your preference?*
>
> A. Require Octave 6.2.0 or later and put the new classes in its own
> package.  *OR*
>
> B. Support Octave 5.2.0 and leave all of the new classes in the main
> namespace.
>
>
>
> *And a secondary question, for anyone who has an opinion, is …*
>
>
>
> *Which is the better name for the package, should we choose to go that
> route?*
>
> C. mp - short and convenient to use  *OR*
>
> D. matpower - longer, but better at avoiding name collisions
>
>
>
> This is a major update with massive changes and my goal is to introduce a
> framework that will provide a solid foundation for MATPOWER development for
> years/decades to come.
>
>
>
> Any feedback or comments are appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>

Re: FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER

[Ray Daniel Zimmerman]

Good point. Thanks for the feedback.

On Nov 3, 2022, at 9:04 AM, Russ Patterson 
mailto:r...@relayman.org>> wrote:

Hi Ray,

My preference would be to use your suggested package approach (and require 
Octave 6.2.0 or later).  Anyone who really needs and older version of Octave is 
likely savy enough to run simultaneous versions without trouble.

Best regards,
russ

From: 
bounce-126942489-88411...@list.cornell.edu
 
mailto:bounce-126942489-88411...@list.cornell.edu>>
 On Behalf Of Ray Daniel Zimmerman
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:02 AM
To: MATPOWER-L mailto:matpowe...@list.cornell.edu>>
Subject: FEEDBACK REQUEST: Octave requirements for new MATPOWER

Hi MATPOWER Users,

I need your feedback on a quick question.

I’m working on finalizing things for a beta release of what amounts to a nearly 
complete re-write of MATPOWER for version 8.0. More on that soon.

Since this new version defines tons of new classes, I thought it would be nice 
to put them all inside a package, probably named mp or matpower, to avoid 
namespace pollution. For those who don’t know, a package is simply a folder 
whose name begins with a ‘+’, like ‘+mp’. If that folder is in your path, any 
class inside it, such as myclass.m can be accessed as mp.myclass.

The issue is that, for Octave users, putting the new MATPOWER classes inside a 
package will require Octave 6.2.0 (released Feb 2021) or later, otherwise we 
could support Octave 5.2.0 (released Jan 2020) or later.

So the question for you MATPOWER/Octave users is …

What is your preference?
A. Require Octave 6.2.0 or later and put the new classes in its own package.  OR
B. Support Octave 5.2.0 and leave all of the new classes in the main namespace.

And a secondary question, for anyone who has an opinion, is …

Which is the better name for the package, should we choose to go that route?
C. mp - short and convenient to use  OR
D. matpower - longer, but better at avoiding name collisions

This is a major update with massive changes and my goal is to introduce a 
framework that will provide a solid foundation for MATPOWER development for 
years/decades to come.

Any feedback or comments are appreciated.

Thanks,

Ray