[Scilab-Dev] warning("stop") or warning("trace") ?

[Samuel Gougeon]

Hi,

Le 09/03/2016 01:18, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
>
>   * warning("stop"): i agree that, in order to update all contents and
>     to be sure that results are reliable and not polluted by
>     unpredictable "[]+-" side effects, this warning mode will have to
>     be always activated for a very long period, may be up to Scilab 7.
>     Then, the problem is that this stopping mode does not resolve the
>     cause: if an up-to-date package intentionally uses warnings for
>     anything else than []+, it will be stopped as well.
>     This warning mode should accept an additional parameter
>     identifying the type of event (or a series/vector of events) for
>     which stopping must occur. Shouln't it?
>

An other solution could be to implement and use a new *warning("trace") 
*mode, instead of the rough warning("stop").warning("trace") would 
display a warning + the where() or whereami() trace locating where the 
warning occurs, /without stopping the execution of the script/.
This has been proposed while CodeReviewing the implementation of 
warning("stop"), but has not been retained. Don't know why.

If the intention of warning("stop") (instead of "only warning("trace")) 
is to urge and compel users to update their codes, then the 
oldEmptyBehaviour flag should not be proposed in the other hand.

BR
Samuel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160309/0434351b/attachment.htm>