On 26.01.2023 08:51, Sven Schreiber wrote:

Am 26.01.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Marcin Błażejowski:

Hi,

the solution was simpler that I thought: the problem was that print_NR_status() did verify 'set messages on/off' , but did not checked for 'set warnings on/off'. The patch in attachment.

Marcin, I don't think this is the complete solution. It wasn't a bug that 'set warnings' did not apply there, it was part of the spec.

This is quite orthodox (or literal) understanding of it's definition: "Suppress or resume the printing of warning messages issued when arithmetical operations produce non-finite values."

Because what we have here (from the above-mentioned definition) is:
1. "warning message", and
2. "issued when arithmetical operations produce", and
3. "values".

The only difference is that produced value is not infinite, but it some sense not so good (or not optimal if you want).

So now we want to treat 'warnings' differently, OK, but that would mean to change it in other places as well, I believe. I don't know exactly where or in how many places, but most likely not just in a single one.

Certainly. But the behavior we have now I would call "extremely user non-friendly".

That's not my point. I'm not against the change. But if our "policy" is changed, it has to be changed wherever the old policy occurs. So we need not just a small patch.

Unless your patch was just meant as an example, and not something to be applied directly.

(And ideally do this in a branch, but that's a different discussion again.)

thanks

sven