Hello Samuel,
IMHO the function call without parenthesis `myfun` instead of `myfun()`
notation is a function call helper handy for some functions and while playing
with the REPL *but* using it inside macros or as real code is not a good idea
for readability.
As a rationale, I always describe the `foo an argument` syntax is a handy way
for listing files and is really a corner-case rewritten to `foo("an_argument")`
before execution. Similarly I describe the dot operator as rewritten to a
string extraction.
Thanks,
--
Clément
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@lists.scilab.org> On Behalf Of Samuel Gougeon
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 1:38 PM
> To: List dedicated to development questions <dev@lists.scilab.org>
> Subject: [Scilab-Dev] Recursive extraction on a function's identifier
>
> Hello,
>
> Let
> function s = myfun()
> clear s
> s.a = %pi
> s.b = %z
> endfunction
>
>
> Presently, we get
>
>
> --> myfun.a
> Attempt to reference field of non-structure array.
>
> --> myfun().a
> ans =
> 3.1415927
>
> The type of the symbol myfun as a function is known when calling myfun.a,
> isn't
> it?
>
>
> So, is there a technical or a usage reason to not understand implicitly
> myfun.a as
> myfun().a ?
> As well, couldn't we expect an error message routing the user to defining
> %function_e() (unless Scilab provides a default definition) ?
>
>
> Thanks
> Samuel
>
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
