Path: news.mathworks.com!not-for-mail
From: "Scott Hirsch" <shirsch.nospam@mathworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.matlab
Subject: Re: Do not upgrade to Matlab2009a
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: The MathWorks Inc
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <gs4gst$pn3$1@fred.mathworks.com>
References: <gs027a$8d1$1@fred.mathworks.com> <a8593395-478c-4c7c-8011-d8a999911cdc@y10g2000prc.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: "Scott Hirsch" <shirsch.nospam@mathworks.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: webapp-05-blr.mathworks.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: fred.mathworks.com 1239795421 26339 172.30.248.35 (15 Apr 2009 11:37:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@mathworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:37:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: MATLAB Central Newsreader 869375
Xref: news.mathworks.com comp.soft-sys.matlab:532866


To Tideman - 

Point made about the incompatible changes.  It's always a challenge to find the right balance between preserving legacy behavior and continuing to evolve MATLAB to address user demands (both with new features and bug fixes). We try really hard to make sure we do the right thing, but realize it's not possible to please everybody all of the time.  

As for the change in "matlab -r" behavior - can't you just put a call to QUIT or EXIT at the end of the code that needs to run (or wrap it in a script that calls the code then quits)?  The reason I ask is that when assessing a proposal to make an incompatible change we look at the anticipated impact on our users, but we are guessing as to what various users' tolerances are for dealing with changes.  If a change has seemingly easy/low-cost/acceptable workarounds, we are certainly more likely to consider it.  I haven't given this particular change much thought, but I would have guessed that this one would have fallen under the easy workaround category.  

Thanks as always for the input.  

- scott