Include more description #14
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any value in matching the original naming/ordering of the figures? GitHub does do a side-by-side diff of images now, so I'd say there's some value in keeping the names consistent.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes you're probably right. I flipped it so that the numbered order matches the order in which the figures appear. But it's probably better to stick with the original order -- I'll do that.
| end | ||
|
|
||
| %[appendix]{"version":"1.0"} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess .mlx export to .m inserts all this metadata, including the %[output:xyz] comments. I think it confuses things if we care about easy to read diffs and readability of the .m file on GitHub.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the one hand, I like that with a single m file we get both the plain rendered readability and the rich text in MATLAB. On the other hand, maybe the metadata harms the pure m code readability.
But overall: in MATLAB, the rich text is viewable, and on GitHub, the rich text is in the README and the m file is mostly visible with a bit of metadata pinged on. I think this is OK, and requires less effort than managing separate mlx and m files.
2 participants
Added more description throughout the example. Switched from MLX to live M-file because the plain M-code is readable on GitHub.