Please remove me from this mailing list. Thank you, Namrata
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 7:29 PM Stéphane Mottelet <stephane.motte...@utc.fr> wrote: > Hi devs, > > Just after changing the rule in macro.cpp I see this at startup, and I > am laughing out loud ;-) > > Scilab branch-6.1 (Feb 19 2021, 14:37:51) > at line 44 of function mdelete ( > /Users/mottelet/git/scilab_6.1.orig/scilab/modules/fileio/macros/mdelete.sci > > line 57 ) > at line 26 of function atomsAUWriteAccess ( > /Users/mottelet/git/scilab_6.1.orig/scilab/modules/atoms/macros/atoms_internals/atomsAUWriteAccess.sci > > line 42 ) > at line 11 of function atomsSystemInit ( > /Users/mottelet/git/scilab_6.1.orig/scilab/modules/atoms/macros/atomsSystemInit.sci > > line 27 ) > > Wrong number of input arguments. > > --> > > Does it mean that we use the "crappy shortcut" as a feature in Scilab > internals ? > > S. > > Le 26/02/2021 à 14:38, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit : > > Hi all, > > > > In Scilab the scope of variables is quite permissive but even in Julia > > (really strict rules) we can have the following behavior: > > > > function y=f(x) > > y=x+a; > > end > > > > a=1; > > f(2) > > a=2; > > f(3) > > > > -> a=1; > > > > --> f(2) > > ans = > > > > 3. > > > > --> a=2; > > > > --> f(3) > > ans = > > > > 5. > > > > Yesterday afternoon I was my students for a Scilab beginners tutorial, > > and by accident one of them had "x" defined before in the main > > workspace and tried to call f without arguments. I reproduce the > > experiment here by explicitely defining x before the call: > > > > x=1; > > f > > > > --> x=1; > > > > --> f > > ans = > > > > 3. > > > > Allowing the function inner scope to see variables of the outer scope > > is one thing, you may or may not agree this is not the point here, but > > allowing to call f without arguments just because the formal input > > parameter has the same symbol as an outer scope symbol is another > > thing. I knew this was possible even if i never used such a feature, > > but my students were so puzzled by this, particularly those who > > already learned other low-level languages, that I decided to propose > > the suppression of this, that I consider as a serious potential source > > of many bugs. Don't tell me that this would break some user code > > because I frankly have no consideration for this kind of crappy > > shortcut and, sorry if it may sound rude, for programmers who use it... > > > > S. > > > -- > Stéphane Mottelet > Ingénieur de recherche > EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable > Département Génie des Procédés Industriels > Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne > CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex > Tel : +33(0)344234688 > http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@lists.scilab.org > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.scilab.org http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
