[Scilab-Dev] Are genlib() changes intentional? Documenting them makes them official

[Samuel Gougeon]

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 
<http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14098>.
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
    <http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Clone-a-function-continued-tp4037723p4037728.html>.
    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
    <http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15919>. 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20190114/59f68de0/attachment.htm>