David Bateman wrote: > John W. Eaton wrote: > > > > args(2) = num_indices; > > args(1) = index_position; > > args(0) = *indexed_object; > > > shouldn't args(1) be > > args(1) = index_position + 1; > > due to the 1-based indexing of Octave? > > D. > > Also shouldn't we subtract one from the return value of the feval call? D.