Matlab prissiness

[gusl]

Why does Matlab insist on every function having its own file? Octave lets you define functions inside scripts, or in the shell. Therefore, my Octave code simply does not work in Matlab, due to this prissiness. I'm tempted to write an Octave->Matlab converter.

I just wish Octave caught up faster.

(this is an imperfect translation: "frescura" is much more common in my Portuguese than "prissiness" in my English, so the translation sounds a little odd. Here's an odd translation: "What prissiness, my brother! Eat soon the thing. You won't die.")

Comments

[afanesvoltaje.livejournal.com]

Functions can have their own internally defined subfunctions - it's just scripts that can't (unfortunately - I'd like them to be able to).

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Thanks. If I define function g inside function f, whose file is f.m, can I access g from the shell?

[afanesvoltaje.livejournal.com]

Nope. It's only defined from within the function its appended to. This is in many ways very nice - allows you to have lots of limited use functions that don't clutter up your overall list of functions and risk getting accidentally called some other time.

I just wish you could do the same for scripts...!

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

This sucks. I want to be able to:
* see all the code in one page, and
* test all functions from the shell

One can't have both ways, unless one has:
* decent multifile editing (separate file for each function), or
* access to multiple functions from the same file (multiple functions in the same file)

[en-ki.livejournal.com]

because "modules" and "files" are TOTALLY THE SAME INSEPARABLE CONCEPT AND IT IS 1958 AGAIN SOMEBODY CALL GRACE MURRAY FUCKING HOPPER BECAUSE WE NEED US SOME COBOL naptime.

[cdtwigg.livejournal.com]

Whoa, worlds collide.

[afanesvoltaje.livejournal.com]

ha

they collided in LA last summer; this is just fallout

[demarko (from livejournal.com)]

I can only think of the equivalent in slang Peruvian Spanish, which would be pitucada