|
From: | anonymous |
Subject: | [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #48390] Unnecessary "shadows a built-in function" warning for packages |
Date: | Sun, 3 Jul 2016 16:04:38 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/51.0.2704.103 Safari/537.36 |
URL: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?48390> Summary: Unnecessary "shadows a built-in function" warning for packages Project: GNU Octave Submitted by: None Submitted on: Sun 03 Jul 2016 04:04:36 PM UTC Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Item Group: None Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Name: Joel Originator Email: address@hidden Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Release: 4.0.2 Operating System: Any _______________________________________________________ Details: I am getting warnings of the following type in Octave (but not in MATLAB): warning: function ./+pointer_reference/get.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+pointer_reference/set.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+template_partial_specialization/I.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+template_partial_specialization/J.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+template_partial_specialization_typedef/I.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+template_partial_specialization_typedef/J.m shadows a built-in function warning: function ./+typedef_sizet/size.m shadows a built-in function I don't see why shadowing a built-in function inside a +package would be bad. Since there always has to be a prefix (especially since Octave doesn't implement MATLAB's "import"), I don't see how there could be any ambiguity. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?48390> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |