test imfinfo.m typo?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

test imfinfo.m typo?

Dmitri A. Sergatskov
test section of octave/scripts/image/imfinfo.m
has:
%! warning ("off", "Octave:GraphicsMagic-Quantum-Depth", "local");

Should it be "Magick" ?

Dmitri.
--

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: test imfinfo.m typo?

Carnë Draug
On 12 April 2017 at 00:19, Dmitri A. Sergatskov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> test section of octave/scripts/image/imfinfo.m
> has:
> %! warning ("off", "Octave:GraphicsMagic-Quantum-Depth", "local");
>
> Should it be "Magick" ?
>
> Dmitri.

Yes, it should be Magick.

But the typo is not on the imfinfo test, it's in the source for
maybe_initialize_magick which does throw a warning whose ID has Magic
instead of magick [1].  Mea culpa [2].

I am unsure if it's a good idea to fix the typo on warning ID or if we
should keep backwards compatibility.  It's pretty recent warning ID I
guess so maybe it won't matter.  Anyone has an opinion?

Carnë

[1] http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/file/41639665aa34/libinterp/corefcn/__magick_read__.cc#l800
[2] http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/fa68a3f7dd8a

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: test imfinfo.m typo?

Dmitri A. Sergatskov
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
​...
 

I am unsure if it's a good idea to fix the typo on warning ID or if we
should keep backwards compatibility.  It's pretty recent warning ID I
guess so maybe it won't matter.  Anyone has an opinion?

​I think it should be fixed.​

 

Carnë


​Dmitri.
--
 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: test imfinfo.m typo?

NJank
On Apr 12, 2017 10:31 AM, "Dmitri A. Sergatskov" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:42 AM, Carnë Draug <[hidden email]> wrote:
​..
if we should keep backwards compatibility. 

​I think it should be fixed.​

  maybe it doesn't matter for this if it's new enough. But is it possible to alias such things? Have two labels tie to the same warning if there was a big concern about removing an errant label?
Loading...