octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Shadowing warning on every command for function in +package director


From: John W. Eaton
Subject: Re: Shadowing warning on every command for function in +package directory
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:51:30 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0

Could you please report this on the bug tracker? Problems reported there are much less likely to be forgotten than they are if you post them on the mailing list.

jwe

On 01/08/2016 04:34 AM, Richard Crozier wrote:
Dear All,

I think I have noticed an issue with incorrectly warning about shadowing
of function in +package directories in the dev build (I am going to use
+package to refer to Matlab style package directories, as opposed to
Octave packages).

If I have a function in +package I get a shadowing warning against
functions of the same name in the global namespace. In recent builds
this is issued on every single command. I have done the following to
test this.

create a directory call +testpckg

Created a function file 'inverse.m' in this directory (there is an
Octave built-in inverse function). This new function should be in the
testpkg namespace and not clash with the built-in.

The directory containing +testpckg is added to the path on startup by
running genpath on a higher level directory. I have checked that the
directory +testpckg is not in the path, but the directory containing it is.

On startup I get the warning:

warning: function .../mfiles/octave-test/+testpckg/inverse.m shadows a
built-in function

This isn't so bad, but as I mentioned, I now also get the same warning
with every single command entered at the Octave prompt. On another
computer I have a build of Octave which displays the warning once on
startup only, so I think this behaviour has changed relatively recently
(within a few months).

hg id reports 63374982750b tip @

Is any of this known or should I submit a bug report? Can anyone else
reproduce it?

Regards,

Richard






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]