<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hello devs,</p>
<p>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 <a
href="http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14098">requested
there</a>.<br>
However, there is no indication whether observable changes are
intentional or should be considered as bugs.<br>
Now, documenting things make them official. Therefore, the status
of changes should be made clearer by their authors.<br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>In a .sci file, functions that are defined after the main one
are now private, no longer registered in the library.<br>
There were some discussions about this new feature, early after
the first Scilab 6.0.0-alpha and beta releases.<br>
I think that we can consider this point as a new great official
feature now.<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>genlib() no longer allows to build a library including some
symbols other than functions.<br>
This change could be a consequence of the first chaneg presented
here-above.<br>
A bugzilla report could be posted about this topic, that was
somewhat presented in <a
href="http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Clone-a-function-continued-tp4037723p4037728.html">this
thread</a>.<br>
This point is problematic for some toolboxes.<br>
IMO, the problem is that there is no workaround. <br>
One smart way to do the same maybe in an even smarter way would
be to be able to protect variables one by one.<br>
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.<br>
Now, when will it be possible to protect variables on the fly in
the session with Scilab 6?...<br>
<br>
</li>
<li>genlib() is no longer able to exclude any *.sci files of the
current directory to not be compiled. This is <a
href="http://bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15919">reported
there</a>. To me, if this change is intentional, it is
debatable...<br>
<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Looking forward to reading you</p>
<p>Samuel<br>
<br>
PS: IMO it would be better to document as many Scilab 5 =>
Scilab 6.0 changes as possible <b>before</b> Scilab 6.1.0<br>
<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>