"Penny Anderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message <email@example.com>... > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for your feedback. For this particular item, we are extremely > interested in hearing from customers who are using this functionality of > interp1. > Can you please tell us a little bit more about what kinds of problems you > are using interp1 to solve in this way? > > Since announcing in R2012a our intention to remove this syntax in a future > release, we have received feedback from a few customers concerned about this > change. I'm happy to announce we'll reconsider this decision. > > Can you please let me know if any of the other proposed changes to interp1 > gave you any cause for concern? > > Thanks, > Penny Anderson > MathWorks, Inc. >
Penny, thank you for commenting on behalf of TMW, and I am glad TMW have decided not to reduce the functionality of interp1. I appreciate TMW responding to customer concerns.
It is difficult for me to say what implications the loss of the other functionality in interp1 might have for me, as I've only just discovered the change is being considered. I am quite busy at work just now and back testing 7 years worth of code to see what effect the loss of the functionality might have, perhaps in places I've forgotten I even used it, is not something I have time to do just now.
Now, a cynical person might guess that you ask what I'm using interp1 for because in your customer interaction training it was something you were told to do (ask such questions to appear to be engaging with the customer, and make them feel part of the decision process, just as questions are asked at the end of blogs and whatnot for similar reasons). But since you asked, in this most recent case I have sampled the x and y components of a magnetic field and wish to interpolate new points for both components at the same locations along a line.
I honestly cannot think of a reason to remove such functionality from an existing function which has been around and stable for years. The maintenance requirements must be zero. I also do not understand what descision process could lead to this conclusion? I mean, maybe you decide to remove interp1 altogether and replace it, I could understand. I would be equally unhappy, but it might make some kind of sense, but actually spending dev time removing functionality? Bizarre. Again, who approves a budget for such a strange decision?
If you want to replace interp1, here are some suggestions. Sort out the Matlab namespace issues by actually properly implementing namespaces (I gather there are some issues with the pakage folders method you've introduced, or else you'd be using them al lot more on your own code), and move deprecated function to another namespace e.g.
or something. This way it can be fixed in most of my code with a simple string find and replace. Even better, for really lazy/busy customers introduce automatic tools to do this for them. Perhaps something like the profiler, but for code change issues. Of course this would also break all my code on older releases, so I would still be annoyed as it would force upgrading every Matlab client I expected to run the code on, but it would at least seem logical to me.
Alternatively, you could deprecate and release the code on the FEX explaining no maintenance will be done. There could be a whole bundle of deprecated functions with all the original help docs etc.
What you should not do is just push potentially hours of code checking work onto me.
S. Lord (not speaking for TMW) elsewhere on this thread points out that the functionality is listed as 'Still Runs' and implies it is therefore not a problem, and that this is the best way to ask users about possible changes. I consider this a strange way of asking about such things. In what other situation is telling someone that something is going to change, then changing your mind about it when everyone reacts in horror, the same as asking in advance? I also do not have time to pore over the release notes of releases to see the impact it will have on me. This implies I have to read the release notes in detail and then try and remember if I've used any of the functionality in my back catalog of code. I might not even have written some of it myself, it might be taken from a colleage or the FEX. Also, I might not even know when my department, who makes these decisions, will decide to upgrade, if ever!
So again, thanks for listening to my, and others, concerns, I am glad you are listening. I would appreciate even more though that you change internally your decision process on these things.