| Re: Another IDL Doc Question [message #78857] |
Thu, 05 January 2012 15:18  |
![Matt[2] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "Matt[2] is currently offline")
Matt[2]
Messages: 69
Registered: March 2007
|
Member |
|
|
David Fanning <news@dfanning.com> writes:
> This is not true. The program does NOT contain a main-level
> program. I suppose all might be right if I could figure out
> why it thinks it does. :-(
Isn't this the kind of problem that is easier to solve when the program
in question is included? You could post the file for us to look at?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthew Savoie - Senior Software Developer
National Snow and Ice Data Center
(303) 735-0785 http://nsidc.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another IDL Doc Question [message #78859 is a reply to message #78858] |
Thu, 05 January 2012 14:15  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
wlandsman writes:
> I had similar problems that were cured by rearranging the order of the keywords. For example, the keyword alpha would not appear if the procedures was defined like this:
>
> pro test,beta=beta, alpha=alpha, gamma=gamma
>
> but it would appear if the procedure was defined like this:
>
> pro test,alpha=alpha,beta=beta,gamma=gamma
>
> This is presumably some sort of bug but I didn't do enough testing to be sure of when it occurs. I did find that I never had problems when the keywords were in alphabetical order. --Wayne
Humm. No, both keywords and the keyword documentation
is in proper alphabetical order. (At least, as I
remember the alphabet! Does T3D go before or
after THICK? I have it before).
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.idlcoyote.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another IDL Doc Question [message #78954 is a reply to message #78857] |
Thu, 05 January 2012 15:42 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
savoie@nsidc.org writes:
> Isn't this the kind of problem that is easier to solve when the program
> in question is included? You could post the file for us to look at?
Well, it is a big file, with lots and lots of keywords.
I always try to think, "What would I want if I were
in *that* person's shoes!" ;-)
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.idlcoyote.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
| Re: Another IDL Doc Question [message #78955 is a reply to message #78858] |
Thu, 05 January 2012 15:31 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David Fanning writes:
> Here is another clue. At the top of the documentation that
> *is* produced, there is a notation on this file that is
> not present in other files. It says: "Contains a main-level
> program."
>
> This is not true. The program does NOT contain a main-level
> program. I suppose all might be right if I could figure out
> why it thinks it does. :-(
OK, problem solved!
There is a module in this file that I didn't write. If has inside
the module a WHILE loop written like this:
WHILE t lt 5 DO BEGIN t = t * 10 & ipow = ipow +1 & ENDWHILE
When I write the WHILE loop like this, all documentation
works as expected!
WHILE t lt 5 DO BEGIN
t = t * 10 & ipow = ipow +1
ENDWHILE
Who woulda known!?
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.idlcoyote.com/
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
