I appreciate the insight, and you're not wrong. It's vital to surface these issues as a precursor to attacking a problem!
-
-
-
As
@o_guest once told me, there's no formal spec for Matlab: https://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/48745-where-is-the-syntax-for-matlab-rigourously-defined … Yacc and Bison aren't going to help anyone here. Plenty of things compile to JS, so one can avoid JS.pic.twitter.com/V2I9UTGbjM
1 reply 2 retweets 1 like -
Meanwhile, who wants to determine the epsilon above or below which Matlab refuses to use (wretch, heave) a *float* as an array index empirically? How many other such "features" lurk like mines beneath the surface? I wondered if even Octave had a grammar. -Nah.pic.twitter.com/xVCamkjbNX
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
-
Ugh.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Sam Schwarzkopf
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And obviously the fact that it rounds the index after sufficient decimal points is idiotic too... I've had some similarly intractable nonsense happening too occasionally.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Yeah, I'd guess there is no explicit epsilon for that indexing check -- it's just using the limit of double accuracy to work out whether it's an integer. I assume this can produce some wacky behaviour for Large arrays.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
It's not really good for science.
-
-
Or indeed anything of course. Code needs to be a little more dependable.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
