Am 26.01.2023 um 11:43 schrieb Marcin Błażejowski:
On 26.01.2023 08:51, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Am 26.01.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Marcin Błażejowski:
Hi,
the solution was simpler that I thought: the problem was that
print_NR_status() did verify 'set messages on/off' , but did not
checked for 'set warnings on/off'. The patch in attachment.
Marcin, I don't think this is the complete solution. It wasn't a bug
that 'set warnings' did not apply there, it was part of the spec.
This is quite orthodox (or literal) understanding of it's definition:
"Suppress or resume the printing of warning messages issued when
arithmetical operations produce non-finite values."
Because what we have here (from the above-mentioned definition) is:
1. "warning message", and
2. "issued when arithmetical operations produce", and
3. "values".
The only difference is that produced value is not infinite, but it
some sense not so good (or not optimal if you want).
So now we want to treat 'warnings' differently, OK, but that would
mean to change it in other places as well, I believe. I don't know
exactly where or in how many places, but most likely not just in a
single one.
Certainly. But the behavior we have now I would call "extremely user
non-friendly".
That's not my point. I'm not against the change. But if our "policy" is
changed, it has to be changed wherever the old policy occurs. So we need
not just a small patch.
Unless your patch was just meant as an example, and not something to be
applied directly.
(And ideally do this in a branch, but that's a different discussion again.)
thanks
sven
_______________________________________________
Gretl-devel mailing list -- gretl-devel@gretlml.univpm.it
To unsubscribe send an email to gretl-devel-le...@gretlml.univpm.it
Website:
https://gretlml.univpm.it/postorius/lists/gretl-devel.gretlml.univpm.it/
