All sounds good to me. Makes sense to keep to the standard way of doing things
to make it behave as others might expect. I'm not all that familiar with the
standard (yet), so if you see any ways to standardise it that is great.
About the input checks - I'd aimed to make it behave as Matlab does for all
acceptable inputs. But for the cases where Matlab throws an error, this
function generally asks the user what to do instead. But I'm happy for this to
be simplified or left for other functions which call these.
> From: carandraug+...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:30:48 +0200
> Subject: Re: [OctDev] Analyze75
> To: adamaitkenh...@hotmail.com
> CC: octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
>
> I've been changing a bit the input check. The standard we have is to
> check the value of nargin. Doing this at the start means that you
> don't have to check if the variable exists later.
>
> Another thing I noticed is the many ways it tries to handle invalid
> filenames. While it looks kinda slick, I'm not sure it's a good idea
> to have the function doing it, it should be done by the script that
> calls it. When you give wrong arguments to a function, trying to guess
> what is right can lead to weird results. Or does matlab also behaves
> that way (it's not documented at least). My suggestion would be to
> maybe display the file selection if no argument is given but return an
> error if the filenames are not valid files. What do you think?
>
> Carnë
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
