Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Stickel<[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just checked in a small bug fix to the nelder_mead_min function
>> regarding some trouble with parsing the list or cell arguments. Someone
>> more familiar with the function might want to check that I didn't
>> break anything. I did check that the test script test_nelder_mead_min_1
>> passes all tests.
I found that my fix was not quite right. I have checked in another change.
>>
>> Many of the minimization functions make use of lists in their argument
>> passing. This results in the warning
>>
>> warning: list objects are deprecated; use cell arrays instead
>>
>> It would be helpful if the authors of these functions could clean the
>> functions up to use exclusively cell arrays.
>>
>> One last note: I noticed that someone ('highegg') recently changed the
>> names of fminunc and fzero to fminunc_compat and fzero_compat. Why the
>> name change? Wouldn't Matlab compatibility be better achieved by using
>> exactly the same name used in Matlab? I use fminunc in some of work,
>> including the data smoothing functions I contributed to the data
>> smoothing package.
>>
>
> the change is due to the fact that fminunc and fzero are now in core
> Octave, so to avoid a name clash.
> I think Octave's fzero is more Matlab compatible than the one in
> OctaveForge, but otherwise roughly equivalent in functionality, so
> maybe fzero_compat can be dropped. fminunc_compat (former fminunc) is
> a mere wrapper to minimize.
>
OK, good to know about fminunc and fzero in octave proper. I know that
the old fminunc was a wrapper for minimize, but I preferred the user
interface of fminunc. I seem to have found a bug for the new fminunc
that I will report on the bugs list.
BTW, I find it confusing that optimization functions are split between
Octave and the octave-forge package. At one point, I thought there was
a plan to keep associated functions together, either all in Octave or in
the appropriate octave-forge package. I guess the split remains more
development oriented: polished functions make it to Octave where as
rough contributions remain in octave-forge.
Regards,
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
