From bug-octave-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu  Fri Dec 12 15:43:39 1997
Subject: Re: Unidentified subject!
From: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>
To: Michael Hohn <hohn at math dot utah dot edu>
Cc: bug-octave at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:43:31 -0600

On 12-Dec-1997, Michael Hohn <hohn at math dot utah dot edu> wrote:

| 
| >> ...
| >>    | Subject: clear() ignores -x flag
| >>    | 
| >>    | Bug report for Octave 2.0.5 configured for i486-pc-linux-gnu
| >>    | 
| >>    | Description:
| >>    | -----------
| >>    |    The -x flag to clear() is ignored.
| >>    | 
| >>    | Repeat-By:
| >>    | ---------
| >>    | 
| >>    | octave:1> a =rand(3,3);
| >>    | octave:2> l = a;
| >>    | octave:3> whos()
| >>    | 
| >>    | *** local user variables:
| >>    | 
| >>    | prot  type               rows   cols  name
| >>    | ====  ====               ====   ====  ====
| >>    |  wd   matrix                3      3  a
| >>    |  wd   matrix                3      3  l
| >>    | 
| >>    | octave:4> clear -x a
| >>    | octave:5> whos()
| >>    | octave:6> 
| >> 
| >> 
| >>    Also, 2.0.5 is ancient.  You should probably upgrade (but if you wait
| >>    a week or so, 2.0.10 will probably be released).
| >> ...
| 
| 
| This same bug happens on 2.0.9 on the same machine;  I just didn't
| want to mail 2 bug reports for the same problem...

Yes, you still need the patch with 2.0.9.  That's why I said I was
surprised no one had reported it yet.

Even if the bug you reported isn't fixed in 2.0.5, it is still
ancient, and there are good reasons for using 2.0.9 instead.

jwe