On 13-11-2012, at 19:16, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti wrote:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> For now, let me just take this to the practicalities of the
> next release. If you have any interest in this, please give
> me your views on these two points:
> 1) The isscalar() function. This was introduced about 4 years
> ago but never documented. It has been broken (I think) for the
> past 3 years or so, until I fixed it a few days back. Should
> we drop this function? Keep it and document it? Or leave it in
> undocumented limbo? (I don't like the last option myself.)
Undocumented and broken. Nobody complained. So just remove it.
> 2) My recent modification to the inbundle() function, which
> now returns an integer code for the type of the bundled data.
> Keep this modification and document it? Or revert it? If we
> keep it, I'm assuming we'd also want to keep and document the
> new typestr() function, which turns the return code from
> inbundle() into a comprehensible string such as "scalar".
I'd keep the new version of inbundle() and typestr(). At that point, we may scrap
isscalar(), which was never "officially" supported anyway.