|
From: | Moritz Borgmann |
Subject: | Re: Function handles for nonexisting functions |
Date: | Mon, 5 May 2008 23:50:28 +0200 |
Is this really necessary? I guess one case that could come up would be fh = @some_function; addpath ("/dir/where/some_function/lives"); fh ();
this is indeed a sick test case, which would actually work in the other brand.
Is this common? Are there other (reasonable) cases where it makes sense to create a handle to a function that is not visible, but will become visible later?
I can't imagine any.
How did this situation come up in the code you have?
I have the situation where I'm creating function handles that I can't know a-priori if they exist. In Matlab, str2func() always succeeds and I can check using functions(...) if it's valid; in Octave, I have to wrap stuff in a try...catch for the case that the function didn't exist.
I have no particular preference myself - I think either solution is fine. Just wanted to know what others think. If there's no other arguments for the Matlab solution, I'd tend to leave things as they are, simply to avoid the effort of changing (and possibly breaking) stuff.
-M
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |