Re: Further on MEX

[John W. Eaton]

On  7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:

| John W. Eaton wrote:
| > On  7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
| >
| > | Better to go for a fully matlab compatible MEX ABI 
| > | and fall under the same argument as distribution of MEX code as source 
| > | code.. That is of course if  we can't just consider that the current 
| > | Octave MEX ABI isn't already  separate enough from Octave and closer to 
| > | matlab that it doesn't already fall under the same argument.
| >
| > What do you mean by ABI?  Do you mean that we should change Octave so
| > that a MEX file built with Matlab can run in Octave?
| >   
| 
| ABI = Application Binary Interface

Yes, I know, but I wanted to know what you specifically meant with
regard to Octave.  At what level of detail?  Do you expect Octave to
be able to be able to run a MEX file compiled with (any version of)
Matlab?  Do you expect Matlab to be able to run a MEX file compiled
with Octave?  I'm not sure that is practical.  That seems like one of
the areas where compatibility is just too much of a PITA.

jwe