Hello Samuel and good in depth analysis, To summarize :
Le vendredi 08 avril 2016 à 01:11 +0200, Samuel Gougeon a écrit : > Now, i may understand from your proposal that you don't want to go on this > way. > You might want to define the look-up table of tagNames only from the setting > point of view. > If so, i am sorry, but i think it is better to not implement this "tag" > feature, because it would > be hardly usable. Yep exactly, initially I thought about that "tag" or "simplified message" but discarded it due to the complexity of such a feature and the approaching Scilab 6 release. My need was just to hide the []+"" warning temporarly on some user code to check the tests. > The ["do", instructions] feature does not need such a table. It could already > be a great > improvement, > with warning() overloading. Yep I will try to add that instead of the "stop" feature. The complexity is the same and it will be easier to manage. About the naming, I prefer a "execstr" instead of "do" but it might also be possible to simply pass a function that will be called on warning (similarly to uicontrol's callback). What do you prefer ? -- Clément _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
