comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 [message #34219] Fri, 28 February 2003 09:52 Go to previous message
JD Smith is currently offline  JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999
Senior Member
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:47:52 -0700, David Fanning wrote:

> Pavel Romashkin (pavel_romashkin@hotmail.com) writes:
>
>> Why is EXECUTE used in this program? Why can't the value just be
>> returned from each CASE? Execute will slow it down and as far as I can
>> tell, does nothing special. There is no code that follows the CASE to
>> prevent you from returning at any point. Will it not compile in 5.4
>> with the extra keyword? I thought keyword mismatches are runtime
>> errors. Am I missing something?
>
> I don't know. I got so confused with the discussion yesterday I finally
> just said the hell with it and went back to bed. :-(
>
> Let's just say I had no idea so many people used the ATAN function.
>
> I'm totally confused about when things will compile and when they won't.
> The only thing I know for sure is they won't compile if they have to.
> For example, they would never compile if you were doing a demo in front
> of the new Vice President of the company.
>
> I think there must have been a change somewhere along the way (while we
> are on this subject). Because I didn't expect that file to compile in
> IDL 5.4, due to the REAL_PART function in the IDL 5.5 part of the CASE
> statement. When it did, that's when I realized I needed a nap.
>
>
I bet you didn't change your IDL PATH between running 5.5 and 5.4.
REAL_PART is in the !DIR/lib as a .pro file, and 5.4 can use it just as
well. Also, resolving a routine call into a compiled .pro file occurs at
run-time, so even if you called it REAL_PART_DOESNT_EXIST it would still
compile.

I.e.:

pro foo
if 0 then MY_NON_EXISTENT_PROCEDURE,4
end

would compile and run perfectly fine.

IDL does check the number of arguments of *built-in* (i.e. not .pro)
system routines at compile time (this counts DLMs too). I think Pavel is
right that all keywords are checked at run-time.

JD
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: The continuing saga of WHERE and 2D
Next Topic: Re: labeling my polarplot

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 15:20:19 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00225 seconds