comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6

Home » Public Forums » archive » no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6

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

Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 [message #34309 is a reply to message #34266]

Fri, 28 February 2003 12:02

JD Smith
Messages: 850
Registered: December 1999

Senior Member

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:42:42 -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?
>
> Alright, here is why I am using EXECUTE. If I change the code to this:
>
> returnValue = 0.0
> version = Float(!VERSION.Release)
> IF (version LE 5.5) THEN returnValue = ATAN(imgpart, realpart) $
> ELSE returnValue = ATAN(complexNum, /Phase)
>
> Then the code won't compile in IDL 5.4, complaining about the PHASE
> keyword not being defined. :-(
>
>
> P.S. The code *does* compile in IDL 5.5, by the way, even though the
> PHASE keyword is not defined there, either.

Which is when _STRICT_EXTRA was first introduced. Coincidence?

My consipiracy theory: RSI switched from checking built-in system routine
keywords at compile to run-time with v5.5. This isn't the first time
they've done this type of thing: around v5.3, they switched from checking
the validity of system variables at compile time to run time (which was
rather convenient, actually).

JD

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: Alexander Rauscher on Thu, 27 February 2003 04:52
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: JD Smith on Mon, 03 March 2003 09:12
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: David Fanning on Fri, 28 February 2003 20:40
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: Craig Markwardt on Fri, 28 February 2003 18:20
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: David Fanning on Fri, 28 February 2003 15:55
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: Pavel Romashkin on Fri, 28 February 2003 15:32
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: JD Smith on Fri, 28 February 2003 12:35
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: David Fanning on Fri, 28 February 2003 12:28
		Re: no backwards compatibility in IDL 5.6 By: JD Smith on Fri, 28 February 2003 12:02

Previous Topic:	Re: 2 questions about .sav files
Next Topic:	Re: writing ascii files (with really long lines...)

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Thu Dec 04 13:07:16 PST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.71973 seconds