From: Jan Simon on 6 Feb 2010 17:53 Dear readers! Can somebody explain this behaviour of ANCESTOR or is it a bug? Works as expected: a = line; b = line; % 2 dummy objects P = ancestor([a,b], 'figure') > P = {1; 1} % ok Unexpected, at least for me: P = ancestor([a, 123], 'figure') % Arbitrary non-handle > P = [1] % ??? Expected: P = {1; []} P = ancestor([a, 123, b], 'figure') > P = {1; 1} % ??? Expected: P = {1; []; 1} P = ancestor([a, -1], 'figure') > P = [] % ??? Expected: P = {1; []} The documentation states: "If H is not an Handle Graphics object, ANCESTOR returns empty." "If H is a vector of handles then P is a cell array the same length as H and P{n} is the ancestor of H(n)." 1. With the found behaviour, the reply of ANCESTOR is nearly not usable if an element of the input H vector is not an Handle Graphics object. 2. Why is the reply different for a not existing handle and an invalid handle as -1 ? I wanted to ask before I send a bug report. Thanks, Jan
From: Bruno Luong on 7 Feb 2010 07:58 Until an authority pronounces, to me it looks like a bug. Jan, you are probably one of the rarest persons who use ANCESTOR on a population. Bruno
From: Jan Simon on 7 Feb 2010 11:34 Dear Bruno! > Until an authority pronounces, to me it looks like a bug. > > Jan, you are probably one of the rarest persons who use ANCESTOR on a population. I have to program compatible with Matlab 6.5 and needed an M-file simulating ANCESTOR for this old version. While the implementation was straight following the help text, the automatical unit-test failed. I have the impression, that TMW did not control the quality of ANCESTOR with a unit-test. I really hope, this is an exception. Thanks, Bruno! I'll send the report. Jan
|
Pages: 1 Prev: ccs 3.1 and matlab Next: Obtaining Coordinates From Screen |