| IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6512] |
Tue, 09 July 1996 00:00  |
mallozzi
Messages: 60
Registered: August 1994
|
Member |
|
|
Hi all,
I just tried to port a large IDL package that runs fine on VMS, IRIX,
Sun, and Linux to Win95. It appears that IDL does not recognize the
long filenames that Win95 uses. IDL wants the filenames in this
funny truncated state that MS came up with (filena~1.dat, filena~2.dat,
etc). This will cause serious problems; for example, what happens when
I write out a data file and then later want to read it back?
I was using v3.6, but a colleague told me this also happens under 4.0.1
Has anyone addressed this problem, or better yet, does RSI have a patch?
Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.
-bob mallozzi
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6559 is a reply to message #6512] |
Mon, 15 July 1996 00:00  |
Mirko Vukovic
Messages: 124
Registered: January 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mallozzi@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
>
>> How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
>> than the long data file names...stuff deleted ...
> This *really* irks me, because IDL uses as one of their major selling
> points that it is portable across many platforms, including Win95.
> In my opinion, IDL is NOT compatible with Win95, and RSI should not
> state that it is. OK, ranting and raving over...
>
> -bob
I beg to agree. WHen I came to Varian (see .sig) from VMS I told my boss
that I know IDL, have used it for ages, have tonnes of software etc, so that
I can easily start calculating stuff etc. Was I surprised.
Release 4 was also buggy. No printing of programs or graphics. Sometimes I
really wonder whether we have any protection from software releases like
this. Maybe getting V5 for free or half price. The only reason I would want
to get V5 is to get long file names and removal of printing problems.
I better stop now...
--
Mirko Vukovic, Ph.D. mirko.vukovic@grc.varian.com
Varian Research Center Phone: (415) 424-4969
3075 Hansen Way, M/S K-109 Fax: (415) 424-6988
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1025
|
|
|
|
| RE: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6562 is a reply to message #6512] |
Sat, 13 July 1996 00:00 |
mallozzi
Messages: 60
Registered: August 1994
|
Member |
|
|
> How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
> than the long data file names...
Well, I have been messing around with this for a few days now, and long
PRO names are not a problem. If you have a file with many procedures
in it, as long as the filename is 8.3, it will compile and run OK.
Still, it is a lot of work, because reading and writing files must
obey the 8.3 restriction, so if your code does a lot of i/o, you will
have to make some changes.
This *really* irks me, because IDL uses as one of their major selling
points that it is portable across many platforms, including Win95.
In my opinion, IDL is NOT compatible with Win95, and RSI should not
state that it is. OK, ranting and raving over...
-bob
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6569 is a reply to message #6512] |
Fri, 12 July 1996 00:00 |
thompson
Messages: 584
Registered: August 1991
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Mason <peterm@demsyd.syd.dem.csiro.au> writes:
> <snip>
>>> How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
>>> than the long data file names. I have a huge idl application I've been
>>> working on for almost 3 years under various flavors of unix and on the
>>> Mac (> 12,000 lines of code). Lots of procedure names like
>>> "define_colors.pro", "set_contours.pro", "widget_window.pro," etc that
>>> don't conform to DOS limits.
>>
>> I haven't tried to use IDL under the newer flavors of Windows, but in Windows 3
>> one could reference a procedure by its name, and it would find it with the 8.3
>> filename. E.g., calling set_contours would look for a file called
>> "set_cont.pro". This causes problems when one has multiple routines which
>> start with the same eight characters.
> <snip>
> Sadly, this is bust under NT and 95 if you retain the source files' long
> names (on disk). But if you go and rename the files 8.3 style it'll work
> as under win3.1x.
> But things are not as bad as they seem - you don't have to rename all
> your source files to port to Windows if you're willing to "compile" your
> source and distribute a .SAV file instead of source. A .SAV file compiled on
> one platform will work on another, as long as the IDL versions are the same.
> If you develop under Unix and you use long names for your routines this
> won't be a problem under Windows - IDl calls a routine using the full
> routine name (once compiled).
> And the only filename you have to worry about is that of the .SAV file itself.
That would require a nightly cron job to create either many thousands of save
files for each procedure (and then how would we name those files?), or one huge
save file containing all the software, which would mean that people would have
reinstall everything if even only one routine changed. Either solution is the
kind of hack that we shouldn't have to go through. We also can't guarantee
that those who are trying to run our software would have exactly the same
version of IDL that we do.
Another disadvantage of such save files is that the routines we have for
exploring the documentation headers of the routines would not work.
Bill Thompson
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6577 is a reply to message #6512] |
Thu, 11 July 1996 00:00 |
Peter Mason
Messages: 145
Registered: June 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
<snip>
>> How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
>> than the long data file names. I have a huge idl application I've been
>> working on for almost 3 years under various flavors of unix and on the
>> Mac (> 12,000 lines of code). Lots of procedure names like
>> "define_colors.pro", "set_contours.pro", "widget_window.pro," etc that
>> don't conform to DOS limits.
>
> I haven't tried to use IDL under the newer flavors of Windows, but in Windows 3
> one could reference a procedure by its name, and it would find it with the 8.3
> filename. E.g., calling set_contours would look for a file called
> "set_cont.pro". This causes problems when one has multiple routines which
> start with the same eight characters.
<snip>
Sadly, this is bust under NT and 95 if you retain the source files' long
names (on disk). But if you go and rename the files 8.3 style it'll work
as under win3.1x.
But things are not as bad as they seem - you don't have to rename all
your source files to port to Windows if you're willing to "compile" your
source and distribute a .SAV file instead of source. A .SAV file compiled on
one platform will work on another, as long as the IDL versions are the same.
If you develop under Unix and you use long names for your routines this
won't be a problem under Windows - IDl calls a routine using the full
routine name (once compiled).
And the only filename you have to worry about is that of the .SAV file itself.
Peter Mason
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6578 is a reply to message #6512] |
Thu, 11 July 1996 00:00 |
thompson
Messages: 584
Registered: August 1991
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"A. Scott Denning" <scott@abyss.atmos.colostate.edu> writes:
> Mark Hadfield wrote:
>>
>> mallozzi@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
>>>
>>> I just tried to port a large IDL package that runs fine on VMS, IRIX,
>>> Sun, and Linux to Win95. It appears that IDL does not recognize the
>>> long filenames that Win95 uses....
>>>
>>> I was using v3.6, but a colleague told me this also happens under 4.0.1
>>
>> Yes, it does occur under 4.0.1. Under NT (and presumably under Win95 also)
>> many routines seem to accept long file names if you append a space on the
>> end, eg,
>>
>> OPENR, 1, 'alongfilename.dat'+' '
>>
> How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
> than the long data file names. I have a huge idl application I've been
> working on for almost 3 years under various flavors of unix and on the
> Mac (> 12,000 lines of code). Lots of procedure names like
> "define_colors.pro", "set_contours.pro", "widget_window.pro," etc that
> don't conform to DOS limits.
I haven't tried to use IDL under the newer flavors of Windows, but in Windows 3
one could reference a procedure by its name, and it would find it with the 8.3
filename. E.g., calling set_contours would look for a file called
"set_cont.pro". This causes problems when one has multiple routines which
start with the same eight characters.
I don't consider that IDL for Windows will be useful until long filenames are
supported. Otherwise, we have no sensible path for distributing our software
to those platforms the way we currently do with Unix and VMS users. Thus, I
discourage those who wish to use our software from buying IDL for Windows.
Bill Thompson
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6586 is a reply to message #6512] |
Thu, 11 July 1996 00:00 |
A. Scott Denning
Messages: 5
Registered: July 1996
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Mark Hadfield wrote:
>
> mallozzi@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
>>
>> I just tried to port a large IDL package that runs fine on VMS, IRIX,
>> Sun, and Linux to Win95. It appears that IDL does not recognize the
>> long filenames that Win95 uses....
>>
>> I was using v3.6, but a colleague told me this also happens under 4.0.1
>
> Yes, it does occur under 4.0.1. Under NT (and presumably under Win95 also)
> many routines seem to accept long file names if you append a space on the
> end, eg,
>
> OPENR, 1, 'alongfilename.dat'+' '
>
How about long procedure names? I would think this would be even worse
than the long data file names. I have a huge idl application I've been
working on for almost 3 years under various flavors of unix and on the
Mac (> 12,000 lines of code). Lots of procedure names like
"define_colors.pro", "set_contours.pro", "widget_window.pro," etc that
don't conform to DOS limits.
If I want to port this to NT, will I have to go through and change
everything to 8-character names?! What a nightmare!
--
A. Scott Denning scott@abyss.Atmos.ColoState.edu
Dept. of Atmospheric Science Phone (970)491-2134
Colorado State University Fax1 (970)491-8428
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1371 Fax2 (970)491-8449
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL & Win95 -- arrggh [message #6597 is a reply to message #6512] |
Thu, 11 July 1996 00:00 |
Mark Hadfield
Messages: 783
Registered: May 1995
|
Senior Member |
|
|
mallozzi@ssl.msfc.nasa.gov wrote:
>
> I just tried to port a large IDL package that runs fine on VMS, IRIX,
> Sun, and Linux to Win95. It appears that IDL does not recognize the
> long filenames that Win95 uses....
>
> I was using v3.6, but a colleague told me this also happens under 4.0.1
Yes, it does occur under 4.0.1. Under NT (and presumably under Win95 also)
many routines seem to accept long file names if you append a space on the
end, eg,
OPENR, 1, 'alongfilename.dat'+' '
however one or two don't (I can't remember which).
--
============================================================ ==
Mark Hadfield NIWA (Taihoro Nukurangi)
PO Box 14-901
m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz Wellington, New Zealand
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
