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

Home » Public Forums » archive » simple deconvolution
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: simple deconvolution [message #75288 is a reply to message #75210] Wed, 23 February 2011 07:45 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
penteado is currently offline  penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018
Senior Member
Administrator
On Feb 23, 11:53 am, Jeremy Bailin <astroco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I braved a += operator in an e-mail the other day
>> where I thought the context would make its use
>> totally transparent. Total chaos. I probably won't
>> do that again for another couple of years. :-)
>
> Seriously?? I think += is much much clearer than the alternative.
>
> -Jeremy.

Same here. Also for ? : and ++. Since their meaning is more specific,
just reading them is easier than the alternatives, which require more
interpreting. The same way a foreach is easier to interpret because it
is not as open in possibilities as a for.

On a side note, in IDL ++ and -- are curious because they are the only
cases of an expression that can return a value.
[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
Previous Topic: Re: Pixelwise temporal trend, problem with REFORM
Next Topic: IDL on win7 crashing

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

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 10:58:44 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.15898 seconds