Error in MIN and MAX
in [Matlab]
|
Prev: Simscape>Mechanical Source
Next: ezplot3 and hold bug?
From: dpb on 31 May 2010 08:31 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 30 Mai, 23:00, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: >> Rune Allnor wrote: >>> On 30 Mai, 15:16, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: >> ... >>>> The min() and max() names are, while possibly could claim they always >>>> ought to be minx or miny or somesuch amplified naming convention no >>>> matter what seem perfectly reasonable to use as variable names. And, of >>>> course, if one comes from Fortran (listening, Rune??? :) ) where >>>> function names and variable names are in different name spaces, it's >>>> perfectly permissible >>> So you are saying that it is not the programming language >>> but the programmer's experience that determinec what features >>> he will be allowed to use in his programs...? >> How do you get that from what I wrote? > > Because you said "if one comes from Fortran [...] it permissible..." > but without stating what language you ara discussing. You have worked > with fortran, I have not. Indicating that you could use these > techniques in any other language, wheras I can not. > > It's a ridiculous statement, so I wonder if you really mean it. _WHAT_??? How else could one think of anything except Matlab as that was what the subject was about and simply a reference to a user who had Fortran experience? And, what statement is ridiculous in your view and why is it so? I meant (and still mean) everything I said; there may be a misunderstanding here, I expect there is. ... >>> It is an incredibly powerful feature. Once one have tried it, >>> one will never go back. >> ... >> >> Yes, that is essentially the rule in resolution of Fortran generic >> function prototypes to the specific function call (believe it or not... >> :) ). And, yes, it is quite a nice feature, agreed. > > So they got one thing right. (When did that happen? From the outset > in the early '50s? Some time afterwards? Maybe after C++ demonstrated > the technique's power? Well, at that point, did C++ have generic procedures, either? Of course not. It became part of the Standard in the F90 Standard cycle (which is about 20 years ago if you hadn't noticed, so it isn't exactly brand new)... > Too bad, then, that fortran sufferes from just about every other > weakness, flaw and blunder in the book. Excepting, of course, that for the most part for scientific computing higher level programming languages, Fortran wrote the book... :) Again, if you didn't know that Fortran has had generic procedures for 20 years you're demonstrating that your complaints are still 40 years out of date. At least have _some_ knowledge of that against which you rant. --
From: dpb on 31 May 2010 08:52 dpb wrote: .... >> Because you said "if one comes from Fortran [...] it permissible..." >> but without stating what language you ara discussing. You have worked >> with fortran, I have not. Indicating that you could use these >> techniques in any other language, wheras I can not. >> >> It's a ridiculous statement, so I wonder if you really mean it. > > _WHAT_??? How else could one think of anything except Matlab as that > was what the subject was about and simply a reference to a user who had > Fortran experience? > > And, what statement is ridiculous in your view and why is it so? I > meant (and still mean) everything I said; there may be a > misunderstanding here, I expect there is. .... OK, it dawned on me where the problem lies...it's in the snipping that's the clue. First, it seemed clear to me that by saying "if one comes from Fortran" that the implication is that the "where" something is permissible refers to Fortran syntax/rules. What you snipped was (and is) pertinent in that it states that Fortran parsing is such that a function reference and array reference of the same spelling (name) in the same compilation unit (program/subroutine/function) are discernible from each other (don't occupy same name space). That was contrasted to the problem under discussion of Matlab where specifically min() and max() were aliased by being used a variables hence aliasing the Matlab functions of the same name. That aliasing wouldn't happen in Fortran even if one made an array named one of these to hold the column-wise minimums (although I went on to say I wouldn't consider it good practice to do so). That help??? --
From: Rune Allnor on 31 May 2010 09:05 On 31 Mai, 14:52, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: > dpb wrote: > > ... > > >> Because you said "if one comes from Fortran [...] it permissible..." > >> but without stating what language you ara discussing. You have worked > >> with fortran, I have not. Indicating that you could use these > >> techniques in any other language, wheras I can not. > > >> It's a ridiculous statement, so I wonder if you really mean it. > > > _WHAT_??? How else could one think of anything except Matlab as that > > was what the subject was about and simply a reference to a user who had > > Fortran experience? > > > And, what statement is ridiculous in your view and why is it so? I > > meant (and still mean) everything I said; there may be a > > misunderstanding here, I expect there is. > > ... > > OK, it dawned on me where the problem lies...it's in the snipping that's > the clue. No, it isn't. It's the statement. The whole excerpt: >> if one comes from Fortran (listening, Rune??? :) ) where >> function names and variable names are in different name spaces, it's >> perfectly permissible You assign the property to the programmer: "If one comes from fortran..." Somebody who have previous experience with fortran is permitted to whatever; somebody who does not have that experience ("does not come from fortran") are denied those permissions. You do *not* say that "In fortran it is permissible to..." which would make sense. Rune
From: dpb on 31 May 2010 09:42 Rune Allnor wrote: > On 31 Mai, 14:52, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: >> dpb wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>> Because you said "if one comes from Fortran [...] it permissible..." >>>> but without stating what language you ara discussing. You have worked >>>> with fortran, I have not. Indicating that you could use these >>>> techniques in any other language, wheras I can not. >>>> It's a ridiculous statement, so I wonder if you really mean it. >>> _WHAT_??? How else could one think of anything except Matlab as that >>> was what the subject was about and simply a reference to a user who had >>> Fortran experience? >>> And, what statement is ridiculous in your view and why is it so? I >>> meant (and still mean) everything I said; there may be a >>> misunderstanding here, I expect there is. >> ... >> >> OK, it dawned on me where the problem lies...it's in the snipping that's >> the clue. > > No, it isn't. It's the statement. The whole excerpt: > >>> if one comes from Fortran (listening, Rune??? :) ) where >>> function names and variable names are in different name spaces, it's >>> perfectly permissible > > You assign the property to the programmer: "If one comes from > fortran..." Somebody who have previous experience with fortran > is permitted to whatever; somebody who does not have that > experience ("does not come from fortran") are denied those > permissions. > > You do *not* say that "In fortran it is permissible to..." which > would make sense. No, _again_ you judiciously snipped to make your context... I said (w/o the aside) "if one comes from Fortran where...". The "where" immediately follows Fortran so it is clearly referring to the language and simply it is that one has that as a background that is implied. And, of course, even if one were to take your stretched connotation of it being the programmer, what, pray tell, would set the Fortran programmer apart from any other if it weren't the syntax rules of the language from whence his/her experience came? Hence, the same conclusion must be drawn even under that parsing. And, w/ that semantic nit-picking, I'm outta' here on this thread. I would simply ask that you just hold the vitriol on Fortran though; it is clearly simply a visceral knee-jerk reaction you were taught at some point and has no bearing on the current language which you have stated you know nothing about. There's no point in continuing a feud against a no-longer-pertinent 40-yr old target. I only respond to set the record straight on what is current as opposed to the impression you try to leave that all FORTRAN must look like F66 or perhaps some F77 as that simply is not true. --
From: Rune Allnor on 31 May 2010 11:06
On 31 Mai, 15:42, dpb <n...(a)non.net> wrote: > I would simply ask that you just hold the vitriol on Fortran though; So why are you picking the fight in the first place? Rune |