<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi again,<br>
<br>
Le 29/02/2016 08:16, Clément David a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1456730201.2803.11.camel@scilab-enterprises.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Samuel,
.../...
The dev@ ML is in fact the right place to discuss new features or how to improve things. On the
"coverage" feature especially it has been mainly developed by calixte as a tool to validate its
analysis pass (not as a well as a designed from scratch new feature).
On the team we asked ourself if we should integrate it or not as it was not in the roadmap for 6.0.0
but is useful enough to be present. We decided to provide it (as an incomplete dev) !</pre>
</blockquote>
.<br>
As is, one guesses and hopes that the 6.0 roadmap did nor plan to
remove code-profiling functions. Yet, former ones have been removed.
As soon as some useful functions are removed, shall they not be
replaced with some equivalent ones at least as featured and
efficient as the former ones? We should even write: <u><b>Before</b></u>
removing any useful features, a replacement at least as good as the
former features shall be provided. This does not look like a matter
of roadmap, just that no regression should be roadmapped.<br>
So, for my part, i sincerely do not understand why there should be
any question, among developers, as well as among users, about
providing a replacement ASAP, even if it is an experimental version.
It shall simply be tagged as experimental, as in the other hand
obsolete functions are tagged as is before removal.<br>
<br>
Unless assessing code's efficiency is considered useless. Could it
be so, for a software that claims High Performance Computing
capabilities? I don't believe it for one second. On the opposite, it
looks like a key module.<br>
<br>
About new functions themselves, i will post comments later, in a
specific thread.<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
Samuel<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>