Hello,
(I may not have formulated the current status and my proposal clearly enough)
> > 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") ).
> 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?
> BTW:
> * 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?
Currently, to remove the warning we have to explicitly write if/then/else code.
There is a warning
in add and subtract codes on the *normal execution mode* (whatever it is). In
my view, this is
useful to ease porting but a stable Scilab release should not contain a warning
in normal execution
mode.
In the source code, a warning is present on :
1. 1+[]
2. 1+[] if oldEmptyBehaviour has been set
I want to remove the 1. warning but this might break without warning existing
code non-ported code.
It currently breaks with a warning.
Thanks for asking for clarification,
--
Clément
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
