Details pane missing in 2025a

59 次查看（过去 30 天）
Philip Masding
Philip Masding 2025-7-21
编辑： dpb 2025-7-23
I have just installed 2025a and the details pane in the main command window is missing. I can't find the setting to restore it. It's reall y useful to load single variables from mat files and add other variables so I really miss it! Attached image shows it in 2024b

请先登录，再回答此问题。

采纳的回答

Matt J
Matt J 2025-7-21
编辑：Matt J 2025-7-21
Yes, it's been removed. You can still preview the file by right-clicking on it and selecting Preview. I would be interested to know what happens for you when you try to drag a variable from there into the Command Window. For me, the Command Window freezes up entirely.
  10 个评论
显示 8更早的评论
Steven Lord
Steven Lord 2025-7-23
It appears Mathworks has fallen into trying to reinvent the wheel on the UI. I've never found any real use for any almost of the stuff that has been added since R7
I've highlighted a key word in your comment. Not every feature needs to be useful for every user in order for MathWorks to implement it; indeed, I'm pretty sure that would be an impossible requirement! [Even performance improvements, which you think might please everyone, can annoy users if they change the answers slightly causing "ripple effects" in code that uses it.
And no, this is not a hypothetical concern. I've seen technical support cases where users complained about a bug changing the answers of their code when a new release comes out, and the root cause being a change to make a function faster causing a unit-in-the-last-place change in the answer returned by that function. The answer was still correct (indeed, it could be considered more accurate than the previous answer in some cases) but because it was different that user had to contact Support.]
But, to each his own; although one wonders why review teams don't bring up these issues before things are revised/removed, though. I would raise the issue of missing features that did find useful as quality of implementation bugs although it's not likely to change corporate direction which, I think, is getting off track.
What makes you think review teams don't bring up these issues? As someone who is on a design review team (though not one of the ones that reviewed this particular change) we do think a LOT about compatibility and workflows when reviewing proposals for new features in MATLAB. But compatibility is just one aspect of the design that we need to consider.
It's a trade-off -- suppose as a hypothetical example that in order to keep the details pane around, we would have had to delay dark mode (a feature that a ton of users have been clamoring for, in some cases for years) by six months to make the code changes needed to make the details pane compatible with dark mode. Would that have been preferable?
One thing I would suggest is that you try out the Prerelease that we offer before the general release ships to users. If you see something that's a show-stopper for your workflow, if you share that feedback on the Prerelease there's time (not much of it, but a little) for us to action it. Again, I'm not guaranteeing that if you had written in saying "Why the bleep did you remove the details pane? Bring it back!" we would have actioned that feedback. But we might have.
dpb
dpb 2025-7-23
编辑：dpb 2025-7-23
I understand there are trade-offs; from my viewpoint it seems the rush to release two updates a year has taken precedence over when new features are really ready to be released to the production code base.
Personally, I'd prefer later release of the feature with enough time with the prerelease for there to actually be a meaningful time frame available for user testing and feedback that TMW could realistically make such changes. The competitive environment with the plethora of alternatives currently available may not be amenable to such a cycle, however.
I grok the perfomrance example; that's why in my former life with a commercial reactor vendor MATLAB was never an allowable toolset; the reverification exercise that would be required to continue to with supported versions would have been far more effort than the benefits of having the development platform instead of the traditional compile/link/submit step of compiler toolsets with official Standard conformance. The pace of improvements was a snail or nonexistent but the NRC compliance and licensing comparisons to allow a change in toolsets was a many months/years effort (although we at least had sufficient "smarts" built into the comparisons to define a meaningfully different result magnitude, not strict equality to the last decimal digit). The move of production code from one vendor/compiler toolset to another took roughly two years prior preparation in recoding and conversion and then about another eighteen months verfication after the new platform was onsite before were able to actually "pull the plug" on the former platform and use only the new one with NRC concurrence.
It also is probably not practical to release performance improvements without all the graphical/UI stuff, too, although that would be the overall direction that would fit my working style most appropriately, not really giving a hoot about the fancy UI stuff.

请先登录，再进行评论。

更多回答（0 个）

类别

在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Entering Commands 的更多信息

标签

产品


版本

R2025a

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by