Re: Basic classdef functionality

[Michael Goffioul]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Philipp Kutin <address@hidden> wrote:

> That's kind of intentional, but if you want to directly give money to
> Michael, nothing's stopping you.

Not to belittle Michael's contribution, but I guess I changed my mind
to donating to the project at large. I have used various parts of
Octave in the past, but classdef seems to be very basic at this point
(or maybe Michael has a different direction in mind; in any case I'd
be curious to hear his opinion).

Can I ask you whether you actually tested the classdef branch? Almost all "basic" features (if not all of them) that you listed in the initial mail are already supported. As you mentioned in that initial mail, having those features would make the classdef support tremendously useful. Though in the above you say that classdef seems very basic. Can I ask you what is(are) the missing feature(s) that transform the current classdef branch from tremendously useful to very basic?

Michael.