| Re: object argument passing behaviour changed in v8.2.2? [message #86272 is a reply to message #86265] |
Tue, 22 October 2013 08:57   |
chris_torrence@NOSPAM
Messages: 528
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:10:44 AM UTC-6, Paul van Delst wrote:
> Ha!
>
>
>
> It's probably my advancing age, but these special cases with regards to
>
> argument passing are really starting to annoy me... mostly because I
>
> *still* keep brain-fading about them, but also because these days I
>
> expect my code to do what I want, rather than what I tell it to do - a
>
> definite sign of old-codger-ism[*] :o).
>
>
>
> Time to translate the code to Fortran2003 I guess. Urg. (Which we sorta
>
> have to do anyway, I was just hoping not to need to do it for a couple
>
> more years.)
>
>
>
> cheers,
>
>
>
> paulv
>
>
>
> [*] Or, more likely, I think I'm in an "autonomous stage" but I'm really
>
> still in a "cognitive stage" with regards to programming skill.
>
> ( http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/10/17/ok-plateau)
>
>
>
> On 10/22/2013 09:39 AM, David Fanning wrote:
>
>> Paul van Delst writes:
>
>>
>
>>> That is, the creation of new object in the method doesn't do anything
>
>>> about the reference to the original object that was passed in, and
>
>>> eventually returned back to the caller?
>
>>
>
>> This appears to be the semi-passed-by-reference condition. ;-)
>
>>
>
>> Cheers,
>
>>
>
>> David
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
Hi Paul,
I don't think this is a special case. It's also not "semi-passed-by-reference." The code is simply passing an expression into a routine, so IDL cannot store into it.
Cheers,
Chris
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
