<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 13/09/2019 à 15:32, Stéphane
Mottelet a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2b22db77-ab5e-03a5-f3f9-9527dff39b56@utc.fr"> .../...
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ff35f31e-9476-5fe2-4546-82b14e767f63@free.fr">
<p>I am neither very convinced by the ones(m,n,.,"boolean") and
zeros(m,n,.. "boolean") proposal, for the same reason
initially exposed by Alain. But why not.<br>
In the same commit, Stéphane proposes to allow using the <b>"logical"</b>
keyword as an equivalent of the "boolean" one. On this side, i
definitively disagree with this. Indeed,</p>
<ol>
<li>it would be useless, adding strictly no value to scilab</li>
<li>it would introduce a confusion for everyone, including for
former octavers, since in Octave an array of logical type is
made of 0 and 1, not of %F and %T. While in Scilab we can
also have arrays of 0 and 1.<br>
</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
OK Samuel, I can forget this one. However, "double" should be kept
as an equivalent of "constant", even if not the name of a scilab
type returned by typeof(). We already have the macro "double()"
(instead of "constant()") and the keyword "double" used everywhere
in the API.<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Glad to see that we converge about the "logical" keyword
exclusion.<br>
<br>
About "constant": You will never have any pain to convince me that
it is even worse than "double".<br>
"constant" can't be more misleading than it already is.<br>
But just that the "double" keyword is useful, since it is the
default returned datatype.<br>
Now, if in some particular occasions it can avoid a specific
shortened syntax, why not.<br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>