Re: memory() function for Octave

Lars Kindermann wrote
> E.g. naming of fields: Should "MemUsedMATLAB" become "MemUsedOctave" or
> should both names be provided?
> 
> Matlab's MemAvailableAllArrays and MaxPossibleArrayBytes return the
> available memory amount *including swap*. Which renders the system
> almost unusable when fully allocated.
> 
> So I introduced few new, octave-only fields, e.g.
> "RamAvailableAllArrays" which returns the available *ram*, which is what
> you really want to know for efficient work. Is this ok in regard to
> usability / compatibility?
> 
> If you think it is worth the effort, I will start to make the code
> suitable for publication and submit it to Savanahs patches. But I will
> need some guidance and help for all the work necessary to introduce a
> new function to octave: Documentation, compatibility issues, tests etc.
> 
> Any comments? Lars

Hi Lars,

I'd be very happy to see this function intyegrated into Octave core at some
point. I have happily used it in many situation and found it very useful.

My answer to you questions:
* Not all ML fields have to be implemented at first.
* If you implement MemUsedOctave then MemUsedMATLAB should exist even if
it's an alias: this will ensure a code that uses this field in ML will work
in Octave
* You are free to propose Octave only features. Their usefulness will
probably be discussed before integration in Octave.

At some point I can help to integrate the function into Octave code base but
I think the very first effort is to see how this function can be made
cross-platform:
* your version is linux only (BSD? Mac?) and partly ML compatible
* AFAICS the one in macgyver_utils is cross-platform but is not ML
compatible and returns different data types depending on the platform.

You should eventually create a patch on Savannah to centralize this effort
and invite Phillip, Andy and whoever is interested to come and help.

Pantxo



--
Sent from: https://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Maintainers-f1638794.html