classdef

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

classdef

Richard Crozier
Hello,

Is it a known failure that arrays of classdef classes are not yet  
possible, e.g.

temp = [ aclass(), aclass() ]

or should I file a bug report?

p.s. I have also just filed a bug report (#40008) for parsing failure  
of classes with empty properties, I assumed this wasn't known?

Richard


--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: classdef

John W. Eaton
Administrator
On 09/12/2013 05:40 AM, Richard Crozier wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Is it a known failure that arrays of classdef classes are not yet
> possible, e.g.
>
> temp = [ aclass(), aclass() ]
>
> or should I file a bug report?
>
> p.s. I have also just filed a bug report (#40008) for parsing failure of
> classes with empty properties, I assumed this wasn't known?

If you look at ov-classdef.h you'll see that class array objects are
intended to be implemented.  Obviously it is incomplete.  I'm also not
sure that Array<scalar-classdef-object> is the right thing to do.  Would
you like to help fix these problems?

jwe

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: classdef

Michael Goffioul
In reply to this post by Richard Crozier
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Richard Crozier <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

Is it a known failure that arrays of classdef classes are not yet possible, e.g.

temp = [ aclass(), aclass() ]

There's partial support for array of objects, but concatenation like the above is not supported yet. You can create an array with something like:

temp(1,2) = aclass()
 
or should I file a bug report?

You can file a bug report, but I prefer to have report about actual bugs, that means something that is really implemented. Personally, I don't see a big value in filing bug about unimplemented feature for work-in-progress.
 
p.s. I have also just filed a bug report (#40008) for parsing failure of classes with empty properties, I assumed this wasn't known?

No. That's a (valid) bug, because it should work fine. Maybe related to recent changes in the parser.

Michael.