Adelson,
It could somewhat misleading to get conclusions about Scilab behavior
with named parameters out of the current fft() behavior, because there
are some pending bugs about fft(), independently from named arguments.
IMHO, it would be safer to do tests about named arguments with another
builtin but healthy function.
Yes, for macros things are "simpler". There is just that isdef() (or
exists()) applied to a skipped input parameter (like in myfunc(a, ,c))
returns %T (or 1) although the parameter is not defined.
Samuel
Le 27/02/2017 à 22:57, Adelson Oliveira a écrit :
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
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
