On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:01, Carnë Draug wrote: >> Carnë, >> >> I do agree with the move of physical_constant into the miscellaneous package >> as it reduces the total number of packages. >> Was it really necessary, though, to change the names of all the constants? >> This breaks all existing code using "physical_constant" (and I have a lot of >> that around), >> would you mind if check-in a patch to allow using both the new and the old >> format for the names? >> It would also have been nice if this change was mentioned somewhere, for >> example in the "news". > > Sorry, I forgot to mention this on the file. The reason for the name > change was that the previous code actually had a bug and when there > was more than one constant (for different temperature or pressure > conditions), only the last on the list would be used. If you commit a > change, do it on the python script that generates the whole function > file. > > Carnë
OK, I'll try to do so. c. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
