On 2012-08-02 21:53, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > On 2 August 2012 15:42, Yin, Yue-Jun<y...@air-worldwide.com> wrote: >> Alois, >> Thank you. I got your point about the agreement issue. >> What is the consequence of shadowing? The performance is enhanced or the >> other way? > > The NaN package overwrites core functions, because Alois thinks > they're buggy. I disagree. The reason to overwrite them is that Alois > thinks NaNs should never be propagated in a calculation. The point of > the NaN package is to do this, to never propagate NaNs, but just omit > them from a calculation. So for example, in core Octave sum([1 NaN 2]) > is NaN, but in Alois's package it's 3. > > - Jordi G. H.
Jordi, you still do not get it. 1) I've never stated that this core functions are "buggy" - Never. However, I'm saying that there is a better way to deal with NaN's that what these "core functions" do. 2) The idea of the NaN-toolbox is not that "NaNs should never be propagated in a calculation" but that NaN's should be ignored in *statistical" analysis (emphasis on "statistical"). 3) after installing the NaN-toolbox, sum([1 NaN 2]) will still result in NaN. But with the NaN-toolbox you have an additional function sumskipnan([1,NaN,2]) which gives 3. Conclusion, you are wrong in all of your three accounts. Alois ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
