| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37421] |
Thu, 18 December 2003 11:37 |
dcw_yip
Messages: 22
Registered: October 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Mike:
I'm there with you man. I feel your pain. But there is light at
the end of my tunnel. I wake up everyday and check off one more day
until we switch the project over to C++ and into the 21st century.
David
Michael Wallace <mwallace.removethismunge@swri.edu.invalid> wrote in message news:<vu1dtmcgncq86@corp.supernews.com>...
> Tell me about it! Isn't it enough to cope with just the language in
> general?! I'm a software developer and the past several years I've been
> mainly working with Java, a little C/C++, and a couple other languages.
> I've started learning IDL since that's the language of choice of the
> physicists I work with and I need to start incorporating the advanced
> plotting capabilities into my other software. It was a little culture
> shock laying eyes on IDL for the first time -- so-called 'objects' and
> pointers just made me grimace. But, I'm slowly learning how to cope. ;-)
>
> Mike W
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37442 is a reply to message #37421] |
Wed, 17 December 2003 12:08  |
Michael Wallace
Messages: 409
Registered: December 2003
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> I'm sure you *think* this is what you want to do.
>> But I'm also sure that if you succeed in doing it,
>> it won't be long before you see what a really bad
>> idea this is. :-)
>
> ...
>
>> a silent Catch that I don't have too much sympathy for
>
>
> Despite David's current peevishness, CATCH is definitely a strong
> contender for what you want. David is right though, you need to have
> pretty good policy regarding how errors get handled and get passed up
> the chain.
>
> Other contenders are ON_ERROR and ON_IOERROR. ON_ERROR doesn't give
> you much control; sometimes ON_IOERROR is required to catch I/O errors
> I believe (and "I/O" includes typecasts).
Thanks to everyone who's responded (and so quickly too)! !QUIET,
ON_ERROR, ON_IOERROR, CATCH, and message seem to be the set of commands
I want.
And David, I understand your concern that turning off messages is a Bad
Idea(TM). And I completely agree with you on this. My original
question was not asked just so I could turn off error handling and
ignore everything, but so that I could do my own error handling and my
own messages. Yes, I am taking on an extra responsibility by doing this
and accept this responsibility.
> Eventually you learn coping skills.
Tell me about it! Isn't it enough to cope with just the language in
general?! I'm a software developer and the past several years I've been
mainly working with Java, a little C/C++, and a couple other languages.
I've started learning IDL since that's the language of choice of the
physicists I work with and I need to start incorporating the advanced
plotting capabilities into my other software. It was a little culture
shock laying eyes on IDL for the first time -- so-called 'objects' and
pointers just made me grimace. But, I'm slowly learning how to cope. ;-)
Mike W
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37444 is a reply to message #37442] |
Wed, 17 December 2003 11:21 |
dcw_yip
Messages: 22
Registered: October 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On a similar note, is there anyway to have IDLDE call "heap_gc" and
not "heap_gc, /verbose" everytime I stop a program with ctrl-r? It
takes it minutes to print out all that stuff I never look at.
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37449 is a reply to message #37444] |
Wed, 17 December 2003 05:19 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Marc Schellens writes:
> Check out the !QUIET system variable.
Maybe this isn't *quite* like doctor assisted
suicide, but it certainly has that flavor to it. :-(
Cheers,
David
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http:/www.dfanning.com/
Phone: 970-221-0438, IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37451 is a reply to message #37449] |
Wed, 17 December 2003 04:21 |
Pepijn Kenter
Messages: 31
Registered: April 2002
|
Member |
|
|
Michael Wallace wrote:
> I'm quite new to IDL, so hopefully this will be a simple question for
> the rest of you.
>
> How can I prevent IDL from printing out all the nominal messages such as
> "% Compiled Module: FOO" or "% Loaded DLM: BAR"? I'd rather that IDL
> just be quiet and only report something to the terminal if there were a
> serious error or if I use a print statement from within my program.
>
!quiet=1
This system variable turns informational messages on/off.
HTH, Pepijn Kenter.
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37452 is a reply to message #37451] |
Wed, 17 December 2003 04:18 |
marc schellens[1]
Messages: 183
Registered: January 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Wallace wrote:
> I'm quite new to IDL, so hopefully this will be a simple question for
> the rest of you.
>
> How can I prevent IDL from printing out all the nominal messages such as
> "% Compiled Module: FOO" or "% Loaded DLM: BAR"? I'd rather that IDL
> just be quiet and only report something to the terminal if there were a
> serious error or if I use a print statement from within my program.
>
> I also have a couple places in my code where an error could be expected.
> In those particular cases, I still want the error handling on and
> !ERROR_STATE to be filled with the correct values, but I don't want to
> show this error since I will be handling it and the program will
> continue execution. So, in short, how do I get control over what's
> written to the terminal?
>
> Mike W.
>
Check out the !QUIET system variable.
HDH,
marc
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37456 is a reply to message #37452] |
Tue, 16 December 2003 19:44 |
Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning <davidf@dfanning.com> writes:
> mwallace.removethismunge@swri.edu.invalid writes:
>
>> I'm quite new to IDL, so hopefully this will be a simple question for
>> the rest of you.
>>
>> How can I prevent IDL from printing out all the nominal messages such as
>> "% Compiled Module: FOO" or "% Loaded DLM: BAR"? I'd rather that IDL
>> just be quiet and only report something to the terminal if there were a
>> serious error or if I use a print statement from within my program.
>>
>> I also have a couple places in my code where an error could be expected.
>> In those particular cases, I still want the error handling on and
>> !ERROR_STATE to be filled with the correct values, but I don't want to
>> show this error since I will be handling it and the program will
>> continue execution. So, in short, how do I get control over what's
>> written to the terminal?
>
> I'm sure you *think* this is what you want to do.
> But I'm also sure that if you succeed in doing it,
> it won't be long before you see what a really bad
> idea this is. :-)
...
> a silent Catch that I don't have too much sympathy for
Despite David's current peevishness, CATCH is definitely a strong
contender for what you want. David is right though, you need to have
pretty good policy regarding how errors get handled and get passed up
the chain.
Other contenders are ON_ERROR and ON_IOERROR. ON_ERROR doesn't give
you much control; sometimes ON_IOERROR is required to catch I/O errors
I believe (and "I/O" includes typecasts).
As to your first question, there is some newfangled compile option
which can turn off the "compiled" messages, but I don't bother.
Eventually you learn coping skills.
Craig
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: How to make IDL be quiet [message #37458 is a reply to message #37456] |
Tue, 16 December 2003 18:30 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mwallace.removethismunge@swri.edu.invalid writes:
> I'm quite new to IDL, so hopefully this will be a simple question for
> the rest of you.
>
> How can I prevent IDL from printing out all the nominal messages such as
> "% Compiled Module: FOO" or "% Loaded DLM: BAR"? I'd rather that IDL
> just be quiet and only report something to the terminal if there were a
> serious error or if I use a print statement from within my program.
>
> I also have a couple places in my code where an error could be expected.
> In those particular cases, I still want the error handling on and
> !ERROR_STATE to be filled with the correct values, but I don't want to
> show this error since I will be handling it and the program will
> continue execution. So, in short, how do I get control over what's
> written to the terminal?
I'm sure you *think* this is what you want to do.
But I'm also sure that if you succeed in doing it,
it won't be long before you see what a really bad
idea this is. :-)
Cheers,
David
P.S. Let's just say after spending 3 hours in an iTool
chasing down strange behavior that turned out to be
a silent Catch that I don't have too much sympathy for
silence. :-(
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http:/www.dfanning.com/
Phone: 970-221-0438, IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
