Are genlib() changes intentional? Documenting them makes them official

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Samuel GOUGEON Samuel GOUGEON
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Are genlib() changes intentional? Documenting them makes them official

Hello devs,

After having done it for lib() (already in a somewhat awkward way), i would like to update the documentation for libraries and genlib() pages for Scilab 6, as fairly requested there.
However, there is no indication whether observable changes are intentional or should be considered as bugs.
Now, documenting things make them official. Therefore, the status of changes should be made clearer by their authors.

  1. In a .sci file, functions that are defined after the main one are now private, no longer registered in the library.
    There were some discussions about this new feature, early after the first Scilab 6.0.0-alpha and beta releases.
    I think that we can consider this point as a new great official feature now.

  2. genlib() no longer allows to build a library including some symbols other than functions.
    This change could be a consequence of the first chaneg presented here-above.
    A bugzilla report could be posted about this topic, that was somewhat presented in this thread.
    This point is problematic for some toolboxes.
    IMO, the problem is that there is no workaround.
    One smart way to do the same maybe in an even smarter way would be to be able to protect variables one by one.
    Then, doing so would be possible in the .start file of a module. Indeed, this genlib feature was interesting mainly -- or even only ? -- as a workaround of the unability to protect variables.
    Now, when will it be possible to protect variables on the fly in the session with Scilab 6?...

  3. genlib() is no longer able to exclude any *.sci files of the current directory to not be compiled. This is reported there. To me, if this change is intentional, it is debatable...

Looking forward to reading you

Samuel

PS: IMO it would be better to document as many Scilab 5 => Scilab 6.0 changes as possible before Scilab 6.1.0


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Antoine ELIAS-2 Antoine ELIAS-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are genlib() changes intentional? Documenting them makes them official

Hello Samuel,
1. It's intentional, when a function is private, it must stay private.
2. Need time to read threads and understand the problem.
3.It is a bug ! Someone forgot to read documentation before coding ! ( probably me ^^ )

Antoine

Le 14/01/2019 à 23:58, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :

Hello devs,

After having done it for lib() (already in a somewhat awkward way), i would like to update the documentation for libraries and genlib() pages for Scilab 6, as fairly requested there.
However, there is no indication whether observable changes are intentional or should be considered as bugs.
Now, documenting things make them official. Therefore, the status of changes should be made clearer by their authors.

  1. In a .sci file, functions that are defined after the main one are now private, no longer registered in the library.
    There were some discussions about this new feature, early after the first Scilab 6.0.0-alpha and beta releases.
    I think that we can consider this point as a new great official feature now.

  2. genlib() no longer allows to build a library including some symbols other than functions.
    This change could be a consequence of the first chaneg presented here-above.
    A bugzilla report could be posted about this topic, that was somewhat presented in this thread.
    This point is problematic for some toolboxes.
    IMO, the problem is that there is no workaround.
    One smart way to do the same maybe in an even smarter way would be to be able to protect variables one by one.
    Then, doing so would be possible in the .start file of a module. Indeed, this genlib feature was interesting mainly -- or even only ? -- as a workaround of the unability to protect variables.
    Now, when will it be possible to protect variables on the fly in the session with Scilab 6?...

  3. genlib() is no longer able to exclude any *.sci files of the current directory to not be compiled. This is reported there. To me, if this change is intentional, it is debatable...

Looking forward to reading you

Samuel

PS: IMO it would be better to document as many Scilab 5 => Scilab 6.0 changes as possible before Scilab 6.1.0


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev