Re: struct weirdness

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Sun, 9/2/12, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: struct weirdness
> To: "Sergei Steshenko" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>, "Przemek Klosowski" <address@hidden>
> Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 8:35 AM
> On 1 September 2012 19:54, Sergei
> Steshenko <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> >     26  samples =
> consistent_struct\
> >     27       
>       (
> >     28       
>       "patient", {"Bob", "Kevin", "Bob" ,
> "Andrew"},
> >     29       
>       "age",     [
> 45  ,  52    , 
> 45   ,  23     ],
> >     30       
>       "protein", {"H2B", "CDK2" , "CDK2",
> "Tip60" },
> >     31       
>       "tube"   , [
> 3   ,  5     , 
> 2    ,  18     ]
> >     32       
>       );
> 
> Btw, since you don't seem to understand how struct is
> optimised for
> the array case (since, y'know, Octave is an array-oriented
> language),
> the scalar struct you want to create can be created with
> struct like
> so:
> 
> samples = struct
>                 (
>                
> "patient", {{"Bob, "Kevin", "Bob", "Andrew"}},
>                
> "age", [45, 52, 45, 23],
>                
> "protein", {{"H2B", "CDK2", "CDK2", "Tip60"}},
>                
> "tube", [3, 5, 2, 18]
>                 );
> 
> The part you don't understand is that the cell arguments of
> struct are
> turned into dimensions of the resulting struct array. When
> there is no
> cell argument (e.g. when it's an ordinary array instead of a
> cell),
> it's treated as a single element of a cell array. If you
> want to have
> cells inside the resulting struct, you have to nest them
> inside
> another cell, by doubling up the curly braces. The struct
> function is
> intended for struct arrays, but you hate struct arrays
> because you get
> confused when they give you cs-lists because you don't
> understand
> cs-lists, because you don't understand how cs-lists work
> inside other
> functions such as the size() function.
> 
> Thank you for your guidance, however. Your efforts continue
> to improve
> Octave every day.
> 
> - Jordi G. H.
> 

"by doubling up the curly braces" - you still don't get.

I am lazy, and laziness, according to Larry Wall, is a programmer's virtue.

If I create the struct field by field, i do not need to double the curly 
braces, and if I use you solution, I have to, and it sucks.

My function doesn't require doubling of curly braces.

I still suggest to implement my function in C++ in order to get rid of 'eval' 
which is slow and "suspicious".

As I said, I want _consistency_ - I do not use double curly braces when filling 
the struct field by field, and I do not want to use double curly braces when I 
create the struct in one shot.

Regards,
  Sergei.