| Re: Operator precedence flipflop? [message #80427] |
Sat, 02 June 2012 09:32  |
penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
That makes sense. Since there were no objects involved, I did not
think of that.
This seems to confirm it:
IDL Version 8.1 (linux x86_64 m64). (c) 2011, ITT Visual Information
Solutions
IDL> s={str:[ptr_new(['1','2']),ptr_new(['a','b'])]}
IDL> print,*s.str(0)
% Expression must be a scalar in this context: S.
% Execution halted at: $MAIN$
IDL> print,*s->str(0)
% Expression must be a scalar in this context: S.
% Execution halted at: $MAIN$
IDL> print,*(s->str(0))
1 2
IDL Version 8.2 (linux x86_64 m64). (c) 2012, Exelis Visual
Information Solutions, Inc.
IDL> s={str:[ptr_new(['1','2']),ptr_new(['a','b'])]}
IDL> print,*s.str(0)
1 2
IDL> print,*s->str(0)
% Expression must be a scalar in this context: S.
% Execution halted at: $MAIN$
IDL> print,*(s->str(0))
% Object reference type required in this context: S.
% Execution halted at: $MAIN$
(groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.idl-pvwave/browse_thread/ thread/
fe6ac2540db82f3b)
On Jun 2, 12:02 pm, fawltylangu...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, June 2, 2012 12:23:48 AM UTC+2, Paulo Penteado wrote:
> My guess is that the cause is the dot operator ambiguity introduced in IDL8. Probably s.str(0) in *s.str(0) is interpreted as a method call for which s must be a scalar. But I can not check, I could not find a list of fixed bugs in IDL 8.2.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
