Here is an honest question to the scilab team (Clement in particular):
What is so important with this change that you cannot drop it?
So far, it only seems to confuse or angry active developers and I can
confirm that it occasionally confuse long time users like my self.
I just tried to run a script from one of my colleagues using 5.5.2:
operation +: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation -: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation +: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation -: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
... few 1000 lines ...
operation +: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation -: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation +: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
operation -: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will
give an empty matrix result.
at line 395 of function plot (
/home/myhome/softs/scilab-6.0.0-beta-1/share/scilab/modules/graphics/macros/plot.sci
line 407 )
at line 258 of executed file
/home/myhome/mypath/Ngc21_LR_discretes.sce
To be honest, I don't see in this code where there might be a 'x+[]', it
seems to appear further down the line, in scilab own macros.
Anyway, my point is not to criticize the work done on scilab
development, but on this particular change, I can see now the issues it
raises while I am clearly not convince that it will bring anything
particularly key to scilab, apart from removing one oddity and its
companion convenience.
Cheers,
Antoine
Le 04/07/2016 10:48 PM, Eric Dubois a écrit :
Hello
I suspect that a beta cycle is not enough and that some toolbox
developers or other users are not aware of this coming change. Once
again this is much shorter than previous changes, which were handled
much more smoothly by the Scilab team... Why still shorten the
adaptation time? Except to mark the difference with the predecessors?
Happy to see that at least (and at last) someone does not find
compelling the case of changing this behaviour.
By the way I have spent something like 2 weeks modifying my code and,
even if I hope having found most of the concerned cases, I am sure not
to have found all... and like Samuel the resulting code is sometimes
less clean than before. And I, have been obliged to stop ongoing
developments to do this stuff, which is from my point of view a bad
oiutcome.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
2016-04-07 22:30 GMT+02:00 Samuel Gougeon <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Hello,
Le 07/04/2016 10:16, Clément David a écrit :
Hello (again) Scilab devs,
TLDR: I don't want to re-open the []+"" behavior change flame-war but just
to remove a
warning on working Scilab 6 code and ask you about the merge timing.
After the []+"" behavior change, the oldEmptyBehaviour has been introduced
by Pierre-Aimé to ease
the transition from Scilab 5 to Scilab 6. This will help user transitioning
using the beta version
and thanks to that we also fix some issues in Scilab itself.
However, the current implementation display a warning in both Scilab 5
enforced and Scilab 6
execution mode. I proposed a patchset [1] to remove the warning in the
Scilab 6 execution mode but
preserve it on the Scilab 5 mode (eg. after a call to
oldEmptyBehaviour("on") ).
What's your thought about this change ? should we pass it now or after the
6.0.0 release ? Is the
beta cycle sufficient enough to manage the behavior change ?
I am afraid that i do not catch all what you mean.
With "Scilab 5 enforced execution mode", do you mean in Scilab 6
with oldEmptyBehaviour("on") mode?
So, instead of using this mode to still ACCEPT and NOT warn users
whether []+a is met, it would warn users,
while in oldEmptyBehaviour("off"), meeting []+a would no longer
warn users?
If what i understand above is right: imo, enabling users to ignore
this warning by masking it would be
quite "dangerous", because changing this behavior has consequences
as serious as quiet.
BTW:
* This would be a first case of Switch-warning-on-specific-case
application.
To be discussed in the "upgrade warning() thread"
* The discussion with Eric and other users is not a flame-war. The
more i modified my code about this feature,
the more i thought that even if "[]+a == a" is not "logical",
it is very handy, it does not hurt, and it prevents nothing.
Removing it compels to add as many if/then/else. /And what for/?
Best regards
Samuel
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
