<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 15/07/2015 14:35, Samuel Gougeon a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55A65399.70105@free.fr" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 15/07/2015 13:24, Antoine ELIAS a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:55A642F4.8000009@scilab-enterprises.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">.../...<br>
Scilab 6, no more create "names" file.<br>
New "lib" file ( xml format, it is readable ) contains all
needed information.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
.<br>
Why not renaming it lib.xml? <br>
1) This would better show its format, and -- overall -- <br>
2) this would allow to distribute modules containing only macros
under a <b>single version</b> compatible with <b>both</b> Scilab
5 and Scilab 6 (including both {"lib" and "names"} and "lib.xml"
files), since .bin contents are unchanged: .bin generated with
YaSp look OK for Scilab 5, and conversely.<br>
</blockquote>
.<br>
OK: a module may provide both lib files, and in its startup file,
test the Scilab version and copy the right lib file in its ~\macros\
directory.<br>
But this is quite tricky. From now (5.5) and until Scilab 6.1,
genlib() could generate both "lib" and "lib.xml" files, and lib()
use the right file among both.<br>
This would make the transition softer.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>