BTW, Scilab has always had problems to provide interfaces to languages that accept optional parameters (but not only because of it) like modern FORTRAN.
2017-02-27 18:57 GMT-03:00 Adelson Oliveira <[email protected]>: > Well, now scilab 6.0 ignores named parameters at fft calls. One can check > it with > > fft(eye(4,4),-1,dims=4,incr=1)-fft(eye(4,4),-1) > > the result is 4X4 matrix with zeros. This is different from (without > names): > > fft(eye(4,4),-1,4,1)-fft(eye(4,4),-1). > > Then, I guess it is to say optional parameters are no longer "fully" > optional, they must be provided in their order ... > > But anyway, it seems that my personal "macros" or functions still work > with named optional parameters (opt1, opt2, ....) treated as, > > if exists('opt1','local') == 0 then > opt1 = default_opt1.; > end > > > 2017-02-27 16:18 GMT-03:00 Samuel Gougeon <[email protected]>: > >> Le 27/02/2017 à 19:49, Tim Wescott a écrit : >> >>> You misread my comments. Tim _likes_ named parameters. If Tim were on >>> the C++ standards committee (which is as likely as pigs flying, BTW) >>> Tim would agitate that named parameters be adopted into that language. >>> Scilab, Verilog, and (I think) VHDL have it, and particularly in a >>> language that allows for optional parameters, I feel that when you have >>> to have function calls with more than a few parameters it vastly aids >>> code readability. >>> >> Sorry for my misinterpretation. >> I agree that it is easier to use named parameters rather than to have to >> count and feed many "empty" or default positions to reach useful trailing >> ones. But when a parameter has been badly named when designing the function >> (*), then it is done and over. We must bear it all the time. And this is >> not nice at all. >> Same thing when you want to add a parameter that has a meaning close to >> another already existing one. Then keeping things (names) clear may become >> hard. Moreover, things get more complicated when using varargin (that >> ignores names). >> >> (*) this is often the case. Scilab misses a standards committee, also to >> well name things. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
