comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » vn5.4 woes (today missing)

Home » Public Forums » archive » vn5.4 woes (today missing)

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

vn5.4 woes (today missing) [message #23118]

Thu, 04 January 2001 02:03

wmconnolley
Messages: 106
Registered: November 2000

Senior Member

Hello folks. OK, I've finally tried 5.4 and I find that:

today() is missing - it was there in 5.2
idldt__define is (ditto)

I've just copied over the 5.2 definitions so I'm OK. But why
were they removed? Am I committing some gross blunder in continuing
to use these routines? Are there new versions that are so much better
that I should rewrite all my code to use them?

Hoping for enlightenment,

-W.

--
W. M. Connolley | http://www.wmc.care4free.net
No, I haven't lost my job: NERC's newserver has become intolerable....
Posting, as ever, in a personal capacity.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Report message to a moderator

Re: vn5.4 woes (today missing) [message #23160 is a reply to message #23118]

Mon, 08 January 2001 02:08

wmconnolley
Messages: 106
Registered: November 2000

Senior Member

William Daffer <whdaffer@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> writes:

>> The lack of Y2K conpatibility lay in the fact that ONE of the routines (I
>> forget the name)

> str_to_dt.pro, I believe.

>> would accept 2-digit years and do something not very smart
>> with them. The routine also accepted 4-digit years so people prescient
>> enough to use them would never have noticed a problem.
>>
>> Pulling the IDLDT stuff was a lawyer-driven panic.

> I agree. I pulled them out of idl 5.2 and use them daily in all of
> my processing at work. If you use 4 digits, there's *absolutely* no
> problem!

OK, thanks for the reassurance, I'll continue to do the same...

-W.

--
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!

Report message to a moderator

Re: vn5.4 woes (today missing) [message #23167 is a reply to message #23118]

Sat, 06 January 2001 18:45

William Daffer
Messages: 34
Registered: February 1999

Member

"Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> writes:

> <wmc@bas.ac.uk> wrote in message news:3a54a92e.0@news.nwl.ac.uk...
>> David Fanning <davidf@dfanning.com> wrote:
>>> I thought all those date/time structures went away in IDL 5.2
>>> because they could not be made Y2K compatible. You must still
>>> be working on that data archive, William. :-)
>>
>> Hmmf, this is in fact working on climate model data, which ran past
>> 2300 well before y2k came. And it seems to work still, once the right
> routines
>> are copied into place.
>
> The lack of Y2K conpatibility lay in the fact that ONE of the routines (I
> forget the name)

str_to_dt.pro, I believe.

> would accept 2-digit years and do something not very smart
> with them. The routine also accepted 4-digit years so people prescient
> enough to use them would never have noticed a problem.
>
> Pulling the IDLDT stuff was a lawyer-driven panic.
>

I agree. I pulled them out of idl 5.2 and use them daily in all of
my processing at work. If you use 4 digits, there's *absolutely* no
problem!

whd
--
Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read
Groucho Marx

Report message to a moderator

Re: vn5.4 woes (today missing) [message #23189 is a reply to message #23160]

Fri, 12 January 2001 13:42

Vapuser
Messages: 63
Registered: November 1998

Member

wmc@bas.ac.uk writes:

> William Daffer <whdaffer@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> writes:
>
>>> The lack of Y2K conpatibility lay in the fact that ONE of the routines (I
>>> forget the name)
>
>> str_to_dt.pro, I believe.
>
>
>>> would accept 2-digit years and do something not very smart
>>> with them. The routine also accepted 4-digit years so people prescient
>>> enough to use them would never have noticed a problem.
>>>
>>> Pulling the IDLDT stuff was a lawyer-driven panic.
>
>> I agree. I pulled them out of idl 5.2 and use them daily in all of
>> my processing at work. If you use 4 digits, there's *absolutely* no
>> problem!
>
> OK, thanks for the reassurance, I'll continue to do the same...
>
> -W.
>

However, it does mean that any code you write using these routines
won't be distributable unless you also distribute the idldt routines.

This fact has made me stop using them in some applications I'm
writing on the side.

whd
--
William Daffer: 818-354-0161: William.Daffer@jpl.nasa.gov

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Which like command for IDL?
Next Topic:	Code for Dynamically creating and repositioning Buttons during IDL runtime

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 13:55:31 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00435 seconds