man, 22 03 2010 kl. 17:58 +0100, skrev Michael Creel: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Søren Hauberg <so...@hauberg.org> > > In 99.9% of the cases it will be just fine to only check once. The > potential problem is due bad user functions, such as > > function retval = myhessian (x) > if (x > 0) > retval = 1; > else > retval = [0, 1]; > endfunction > > In such silly cases I guess you need the error checks. Perhaps > it can be > done more efficiently than what I did, though. > > Even in a case like this it would only bite if x were very close to 1. > I think that the first check should be sufficient.
Yeah, that's a good point. I assume you fear the many checks will be a performance problem. If this is indeed the case, then I guess it the checks should be removed again. I added them as part of the debugging I did. > BTW. why is this function implemented in C++? Does it provide > superior > speed compared to an m-file implementation? > > It is essentially a double loop with a function evaluation inside. > Normally, Octave is not great with loops. I'm pretty sure that this is > the case here, but I wrote this so long ago that I don't remember the > performance gain in going from .m to .oct. Ok. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
