1,860
edits
Online Developer Meeting (2021-07-27): Difference between revisions
Online Developer Meeting (2021-07-27) (view source)
Revision as of 08:19, 29 July 2021
, 29 July 2021→Octave 6.3 released
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* No "official" announcement happened. Maybe reuse abandoned mailing-lists to announce important events, such as releases. | * No "official" announcement happened. Maybe reuse abandoned mailing-lists to announce important events, such as releases. | ||
* How do distribution maintainers get to know about Octave releases? | * How do distribution maintainers get to know about Octave releases? | ||
** Contact Debian maintainers of the Octave package to maybe improve our communication | ** Contact Debian maintainers of the Octave package to maybe improve our communication. | ||
*** Done, already answered: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/octave-maintainers/2021-07/msg00001.html | |||
=== Octave 6.4 / 7 / 8 === | === Octave 6.4 / 7 / 8 === | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
** jwe will continue to work on this feature on Octave 7 (default branch) | ** jwe will continue to work on this feature on Octave 7 (default branch) | ||
** If feature cannot be completed by the end of the year, it will be disabled on parser-level (error), and introduced in Octave 8 one year later. | ** If feature cannot be completed by the end of the year, it will be disabled on parser-level (error), and introduced in Octave 8 one year later. | ||
* New GUI command widget | * [https://octave.discourse.group/t/new-command-window-widget/501? New GUI command widget] | ||
** Possible to introduce it as user opt-in in Octave 7 | ** Possible to introduce it as user opt-in in Octave 7 | ||
** Pending issues: | ** Pending issues: | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
* Deprecation of Octave operators | * Deprecation of Octave operators | ||
** Improve Matlab compatibility | ** Improve Matlab compatibility | ||
** Some extensions make it painful to implement Matlab compatible command-style function calls? | ** Some extensions make it painful to implement Matlab compatible command-style function calls? See also the [https://octave.discourse.group/t/parsing-command-style-function-call-syntax/1414/7 discussion] about this topic. | ||
*** Remove rarely used extensions like "**" power. | *** Remove rarely used extensions like "**" power. | ||
*** Discussion about removal of "+=", "++", etc. No final decision made. | *** Discussion about removal of "+=", "++", etc. No final decision made. | ||
*** Often used extensions like "!" = | *** Often used extensions must probably stay (like "!" or "!=" used in place of "~" or "~="). | ||
=== C++ shared pointer / liboctave === | === C++ shared pointer / liboctave === | ||
* jwe had a look at Octave own reference counting | * jwe had a look at Octave own reference counting | ||
* Wish to replace it with C++ shared pointers | * Wish to replace it with C++ shared pointers | ||
* Expert knowledge wanted! | * Expert knowledge wanted! jwe opened a [https://octave.discourse.group/t/using-std-shared-ptr-t-to-implement-copy-on-write-objects-in-octave/1436 discussion thread] | ||
* jwe identified "copy expensive" inefficiency about mxArray to octave_value conversion? Root of the trouble lies in historical handling of complex data? See this [https://octave.discourse.group/t/improving-performance-of-data-transfer-to-and-from-mex-functions/1437 discussion]. | |||
* jwe identified "copy expensive" inefficiency about mxArray to octave_value conversion? | |||
== Previous topics == | == Previous topics == | ||