[Scilab-Dev] [oldEmptyBehaviour()] displaying a warning message in both Scilab 5 and Scilab 6 behavior

[Eric Dubois]

Hello

I suspect that a beta cycle is not enough and that some toolbox developers
or other users are not aware of this coming change. Once again this is much
shorter than previous changes, which were handled much more smoothly by the
Scilab team... Why still shorten the adaptation time? Except to mark the
difference with the predecessors?

Happy to see that at least (and at last) someone does not find compelling
the case of changing this behaviour.

By the way I have spent something like 2 weeks modifying my code and, even
if I hope having found most of the concerned cases, I am sure not to have
found all... and like Samuel the resulting code is sometimes less clean
than before. And I, have been obliged to stop ongoing developments to do
this stuff, which is from my point of view a bad oiutcome.

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Garanti
sans virus. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

2016-04-07 22:30 GMT+02:00 Samuel Gougeon <sgougeon at free.fr>:

> Hello,
>
> Le 07/04/2016 10:16, Clément David a écrit :
>
> Hello (again) Scilab devs,
>
> TLDR: I don't want to re-open the []+"" behavior change flame-war but just to remove a
>       warning on working Scilab 6 code and ask you about the merge timing.
>
>
> After the []+"" behavior change, the oldEmptyBehaviour has been introduced by Pierre-Aimé to ease
> the transition from Scilab 5 to Scilab 6. This will help user transitioning using the beta version
> and thanks to that we also fix some issues in Scilab itself.
>
> However, the current implementation display a warning in both Scilab 5 enforced and Scilab 6
> execution mode. I proposed a patchset [1] to remove the warning in the Scilab 6 execution mode but
> preserve it on the Scilab 5 mode (eg. after a call to oldEmptyBehaviour("on") ).
>
> What's your thought about this change ? should we pass it now or after the 6.0.0 release ? Is the
> beta cycle sufficient enough to manage the behavior change ?
>
>
> I am afraid that i do not catch all what you mean.
> With "Scilab 5 enforced execution mode", do you mean in  Scilab 6 with
> oldEmptyBehaviour("on") mode?
> So, instead of using this mode to still ACCEPT and NOT warn users whether
> []+a is met, it would warn users,
> while in oldEmptyBehaviour("off"), meeting []+a would no longer warn users?
>
> If what i understand above is right: imo, enabling users to ignore this
> warning by masking it would be
> quite "dangerous", because changing this behavior has consequences as
> serious as quiet.
>
> BTW:
> * This would be a first case of Switch-warning-on-specific-case
> application.
>    To be discussed in the "upgrade warning() thread"
> * The discussion with Eric and other users is not a flame-war. The more i
> modified my code about this feature,
>    the more i thought that even if "[]+a == a" is not "logical", it is
> very handy, it does not hurt, and it prevents nothing.
>    Removing it compels to add as many if/then/else.  *And what for*?
>
> Best regards
> Samuel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160407/36864291/attachment.htm>