[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?) |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:59:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080306) |
John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 3-Apr-2008, David Bateman wrote:
>
> | How do we do this in a way that is called once.. Imagine a deprecated
> | function in the inner loop of a function that is called 1000s of times.
> | Is there an existing mechanism to make the warning only appear once
> | before we come back to the prompt or do we need some like
> |
> | persistent warned = false;
> | if (! warned)
> | warned = true;
> | warning ("Octave:deprecated-function",
> | "OLD-FCN is obsolete and will be removed from Octave VERSION;
> | please use NEW-FCN instead");
> | endif
> |
> | I don't consider that its a good idea to have this warning off by
> | default, and then the warning doesn't serve its purpose.
>
> Yes, I agree that it should only appear once. I don't see a better
> way than the one you show above. I first thought of having something
> like
>
> PKG_ADD: warning ("once", "Octave:deprecated-function");
>
> but that would apply to all warnings tagged with
> Octave:deprecated-function, so we would need to choose unique tags.
> We could use Octave:FCN-deprecated instead to make them unique. Would
> that be better? It might apply to other functions, so implementing
> the "once" feature for warning might be useful enough to justify the
> effort. What do you think?
>
> jwe
>
>
Yes that might be a nice feature, but I think you'd then also need
warning ("clear", "Octave:deprecated-function");
so that the fact that the warning has already appeared might be
cleared.. Will the fact that there are a large number of named warning
make things slower however? If so I think I'd prefer to forgo it..
D.
--
David Bateman address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph)
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob)
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax)
The information contained in this communication has been classified as:
[x] General Business Information
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary
- test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), (continued)
- test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), Ben Abbott, 2008/04/02
- test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/02
- test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/02
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), Ben Abbott, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), Ben Abbott, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?),
David Bateman <=
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/03
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/04
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), David Bateman, 2008/04/04
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), John W. Eaton, 2008/04/04
- Re: test failures with current mercurial sources (was Re: 3.0.1 release?), Ben Abbott, 2008/04/03