| Using subroutines [message #84960] |
Wed, 19 June 2013 14:45  |
le.davide
Messages: 18
Registered: November 2010
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Hi all,
I am sure I am going through something very well known.
I have a large code. And I wish to break it in smaller sections.
So my hope was to do something like
pro main_routine
routine_reading_files
routine_making_initializations
routing_making_operations
routine_writing_outputs
end
(I bet you are laughing) so it looks like "routine_making_initializations" doesn't know anything about what the previous routine read.
Don't tell me that I have to make functions instead of routines.
As I said, I want to break my too-long code into subsections for obvious reasons. Is there any way I can accomplish this? I don't think making a function for each step would make my tasks easier.
Thanks.
David
|
|
|
|
| Re: Using subroutines [message #84961 is a reply to message #84960] |
Wed, 19 June 2013 15:07  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
David writes:
> I am sure I am going through something very well known.
> I have a large code. And I wish to break it in smaller sections.
> So my hope was to do something like
>
> pro main_routine
>
> routine_reading_files
> routine_making_initializations
> routing_making_operations
> routine_writing_outputs
>
> end
>
> (I bet you are laughing)
Yes, but only because I was going to suggest you would be MUCH further
along if you wrote the whole thing as an object, with these little
organizing routines as methods of the object. Then, you wouldn't have to
worry about communication between routines. :-)
> so it looks like "routine_making_initializations" doesn't know
> anything about what the previous routine read.
> Don't tell me that I have to make functions instead of routines.
OK, you don't have to write functions. But, you DO have to figure out a
way for these routines to communicate with each other. Functions are an
obvious choice if you want to return something from a routine, but other
methods work as well. You could use output keywords, for example. Common
blocks (yuck!). A pointer. Etc.
> As I said, I want to break my too-long code into subsections for obvious reasons. Is there any way I can accomplish this? I don't think making a function for each step would make my tasks easier.
If it is not going to make your life easier, then forget it. Breaking
things into modules is BS if you don't get something out of it. Most of
the time I write modular code because it makes my programs easier to
maintain and extend in the future. Sometimes, at least for me, the
payoff is in the future, not in the present.
Cheers,
David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.idlcoyote.com/
Sepore ma de ni thue. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
