2011/10/21 c. <carlo.defa...@gmail.com>:
> On 21 Oct 2011, at 13:13, Carnë Draug wrote:
>> 2011/10/20 c. <carlo.defa...@gmail.com>:
>>> the C++ version has the same functionality but is (very slightly) faster so 
>>> you might want to keep it.
>>
>> If it has the same functionality but works faster, why not use it in
>> octave-core too?
>> Is there a reason for that other than the slightly
>> different API?
>
> If I recall correctly the main reason to switch to m-file was because the 
> m-file version can  handle complex matrices while the C++ would need to be 
> adapted,
> the speed difference was found to not be worth the loss of generality.

Hmm.... you think it's really worth keep it in octave-forge if the
difference in speed is that small?

And if we were to remove it (and even if not, I'd like to know how to
do this), do you know how to mark C++ functions deprecated? I think
that for m functions is enough to move them into a deprecated
directory, but what about these cases? Thanks

Carnë

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the
demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly.
Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn 
about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to