[Scilab-users] xdel replaced by close()

[Stephane Mottelet]

However, the findobj() fix that has been recently merged by Clément 
restores only the speed of tags search. findbobj()  won't be further 
fixed as it provides many useful features which were missing to its 
(fast but poor) previous version.

Indeed, using findobj to get the handle of a figure knowing its id is 
the most complicated that one can imagine. It sounds to me like the 
affirmation: « why make it simple when it can be made complicated »... I 
mean, close() has to be fixed to use scf() as proposed in this thread.

Sometimes adding useful and needed features can degrade the speed of a 
function (you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs).  Finding 
handles given their tag has its original performance with this patch. 
But I repeat that h=findobj('figure_id",id) should be avoided in favour 
of h=scf(id), until findobj() is completely rewritten in C++ (which is 
planned).

Moreover nobody was complaining about xdel() and making it deprecated 
was never discussed by the community. Many people don't use Scilab any 
more because it misses features. So Scilab needs features, not 
absurde/arbitrary cleaning . A word to the wise...

S.

Le 2022-01-22 14:24, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> This is fixed for the next release:
> 
> https://codereview.scilab.org/#/c/21803/ [1]
> 
> In the meantime, if you really need it you can download the patched 
> version of findobj.
> 
> S.
> 
>> Le 21 janv. 2022 à 23:54, Samuel Gougeon <sgougeon at free.fr> a écrit :
> 
> Hello Claus,
> 
> Le 21/01/2022 à 20:58, Claus Futtrup a écrit : Hi Scilabers
> 
> Today I tried to replace xdel(winsid()) in one of my scripts with 
> close(winsid()) because Scilab shows a warning in the console:
> 
> Warning: Feature xdel(...) is obsolete and will be permanently removed 
> in Scilab 6.2
> 
> Warning: Please use close(...) instead.
> 
> I am negatively surprised that the close() command takes a long time to 
> execute with 5-10 windows open (a few seconds per window). The xdel() 
> command can do it in a split second.
> 
> The issue comes not from close() but from the change of findobj() that 
> it calls [2], noticeably to perform findobj("figure_id",id) in 6.1.1.
> It does not impact only [3] close() for this case, that was processed 
> as a special accelerated case [4] in the former findobj().
> This downgrading was reported [5] 7 months before releasing 6.1.1, and 
> knowingly ignored, while it is perfectly fixable by restoring the fast 
> special case.
> 
> What is the motivation for replacing xdel with close?
> Both do the same thing. Scilab does not need duplicates.
> 
> Regards
> Samuel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users at lists.scilab.org
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=http%3A//lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users&k=dFBm

Links:
------
[1] 
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=https%3A//codereview.scilab.org/%23/c/21803/&k=dFBm
[2] 
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=http%3A//bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D13738%23c4&k=dFBm
[3] 
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=http%3A//bugzilla.scilab.org/16734&k=dFBm
[4] 
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=https%3A//codereview.scilab.org/%23/c/20953/6/scilab/modules/gui/macros/findobj.sci&k=dFBm
[5] 
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/v3?i=SGI0YVJGNmxZNE90Z2thMFYLWSxJOfIERJocpmb73Vs&r=SW5LV3JodE9QZkRVZ3JEYbCxfBpXCzNXFJI9eyEBCB_E8EQzXar_oWBGCSukLx6I&f=bnJjU3hQT3pQSmNQZVE3aPQ56ZBjot0Lu_H1dlHvp1727w_z78BVJc295PQlt99Z&u=http%3A//bugzilla.scilab.org/show_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D7117%23c6&k=dFBm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20220122/f3775fd6/attachment.htm>