[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}?
From: |
Søren Hauberg |
Subject: |
Re: why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}? |
Date: |
Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:36:36 +0100 |
tor, 19 02 2009 kl. 14:49 -0500, skrev John W. Eaton:
> Does anyone know if there is some reason that these functions have not
> been moved to the deprecated directory yet? It seems that Matlab uses
> the names normcdf, norminv, normpdf, and normrnd, and Octave also has
> those now. So unless anyone objects, I think we should move these to
> the deprecated directory before the 3.2 release.
>
> stdnormal_cdf
> stdnormal_inv
> stdnormal_pdf
> stdnormal_rnd
It makes sense to do so.
Out of curiosity: what happens to functions in the deprecated directory?
I assume they are removed at some point. For how many releases do they
stay? Are there any functions that should be removed for 3.2?
Soren
- Prev by Date:
why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}?
- Next by Date:
Re: why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}?
- Previous by thread:
why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}?
- Next by thread:
Re: why do we still have stdnormal_{cdf,inv,pdf,rnd}?
- Index(es):