Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
Hi, Me again. Why isnt it possible to suppress syntax errors in RESOLVE_ROUTINE unless I use EXECUTE and IDL_IDLBRIDGE instead? How come !QUIET or CATCH, ERROR wont take of it? Or is there another way than using execute so that any errors caused by RESOLVE_ROUTINE (including syntax errors) wont be shown / printed to screen? PRO LOAD_ROUTINE, ROUTINE !QUIET=1 CATCH, ERROR IF (ERROR NE 0) THEN RETURN RESOLVE_ROUTINE, ROUTINE, /EITHER END PRO MY_PROCEDURE ... LOAD_ROUTINE, ROUTINE ... END gracias dometz
Dometz, How about: resolve_all,/continue_on_error,/quiet This, of course, just won't compile routines which have errors but I guess that's what you want? Thanks, Allan Dometz wrote: > Hi, > > Me again. Why isnt it possible to suppress syntax errors in > RESOLVE_ROUTINE unless I use EXECUTE and IDL_IDLBRIDGE instead? How > come !QUIET or CATCH, ERROR wont take of it? > > Or is there another way than using execute so that any errors caused by > RESOLVE_ROUTINE (including syntax errors) wont be shown / printed to > screen? > > > PRO LOAD_ROUTINE, ROUTINE > !QUIET=1 > CATCH, ERROR > IF (ERROR NE 0) THEN RETURN > RESOLVE_ROUTINE, ROUTINE, /EITHER > END > > PRO MY_PROCEDURE > ... > LOAD_ROUTINE, ROUTINE > ... > END > > gracias > > dometz >
Dometz wrote: > Me again. Why isnt it possible to suppress syntax errors in > RESOLVE_ROUTINE unless I use EXECUTE and IDL_IDLBRIDGE instead? How > come !QUIET or CATCH, ERROR wont take of it? Is this a philosophical question? I guess I'm practically minded (or used to this kind of thing in IDL).; accept it or file a feature request with ITTVIS. > Or is there another way than using execute so that any errors caused by > RESOLVE_ROUTINE (including syntax errors) wont be shown / printed to > screen? I went up the "ladder of sledgehammer to pound in a nail" for suppressing error messages: 1. CATCH 2. !quiet = 1 3. EXECUTE(..., 1) 4. IDL_IDLBridge 5. Callable IDL The first three didn't do it. So I did #4 (I'm not going to do #5, but feel free). There may be other techniques out there, but I didn't think of any others. Mike -- www.michaelgalloy.com
mgalloy@gmail.com writes: > I went up the "ladder of sledgehammer to pound in a nail" for > suppressing error messages: > > 1. CATCH > 2. !quiet = 1 > 3. EXECUTE(..., 1) > 4. IDL_IDLBridge > 5. Callable IDL > > The first three didn't do it. So I did #4 (I'm not going to do #5, but > feel free). There may be other techniques out there, but I didn't think > of any others. I think you forgot "Get Lajos to put the damn thing into FL and use that." :-) Cheers, David -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting, Inc. Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:47:43 -0700, mgalloy@gmail.com wrote: > Dometz wrote: >> Me again. Why isnt it possible to suppress syntax errors in >> RESOLVE_ROUTINE unless I use EXECUTE and IDL_IDLBRIDGE instead? How >> come !QUIET or CATCH, ERROR wont take of it? > > The first three didn't do it. So I did #4 (I'm not going to do #5, but > feel free). There may be other techniques out there, but I didn't think > of any others. Why not simply call IDL like: idl -arg routine verify_routine.pro 2>/dev/null then you won't be bothered with all those pesky error messages? JD
Hey Mike, I used the code from: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.idl-pvwave/tree/bro wse_frm/thread/3440e343f95bdd62/0b00aaec3e114be9?rnum=11&amp ;_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.idl-pvwave%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread %2F3440e343f95bdd62%2F071a7131acc5184b%3F#doc_c3f7eca04ca4e9 4f to create an idl-bridge. The syntax error messages are gone :-D BUT it doesnt seem that the methods are loaded in the original idl instance but only in the newly created IDL sessions. thanks, dometz mgalloy@gmail.com wrote: > Dometz wrote: >> Me again. Why isnt it possible to suppress syntax errors in >> RESOLVE_ROUTINE unless I use EXECUTE and IDL_IDLBRIDGE instead? How >> come !QUIET or CATCH, ERROR wont take of it? > > Is this a philosophical question? I guess I'm practically minded (or > used to this kind of thing in IDL).; accept it or file a feature > request with ITTVIS. > >> Or is there another way than using execute so that any errors caused by >> RESOLVE_ROUTINE (including syntax errors) wont be shown / printed to >> screen? > > I went up the "ladder of sledgehammer to pound in a nail" for > suppressing error messages: > > 1. CATCH > 2. !quiet = 1 > 3. EXECUTE(..., 1) > 4. IDL_IDLBridge > 5. Callable IDL > > The first three didn't do it. So I did #4 (I'm not going to do #5, but > feel free). There may be other techniques out there, but I didn't think > of any others. > > Mike > -- > www.michaelgalloy.com
Dometz wrote: > I used the code from: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.idl-pvwave/tree/bro wse_frm/thread/3440e343f95bdd62/0b00aaec3e114be9?rnum=11&amp ;_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.idl-pvwave%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread %2F3440e343f95bdd62%2F071a7131acc5184b%3F#doc_c3f7eca04ca4e9 4f > to create an idl-bridge. > > The syntax error messages are gone :-D BUT it doesnt seem that the > methods are loaded in the original idl instance but only in the newly > created IDL sessions. That's right. If you need a single session with all the routines in it, I would make a single IDL_IDLBridge and then repeatedly compile routines in it. If you are going to check a lot of routines, I would do this anyway since there is so much overhead in creating an IDL_IDLBridge. Mike -- www.michaelgalloy.com
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:23:22 -0600, Michael Galloy wrote: > Dometz wrote: >> [quoted text muted] > > That's right. If you need a single session with all the routines in it, I > would make a single IDL_IDLBridge and then repeatedly compile routines in > it. If you are going to check a lot of routines, I would do this anyway > since there is so much overhead in creating an IDL_IDLBridge. How much overhead is it? How much processing do you need to do in a the Bridge for it to be worth it to start up? JD