| Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines) [message #17257 is a reply to message #17138] |
Fri, 17 September 1999 00:00   |
davidf
Messages: 2866
Registered: September 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Greg (ushomirs@my-deja.com) writes:
> see! that's yet another example of how poorly thought out IDL is!!
> other directives (such as .RUN, .COMPILE) don't need a comma after
> their names. Why not make it .COMPILE_OPT, so that the lack of comma
> would at least make sense? I guess that would be too reasonable and
> well thought-out for RSI.. sigh..
Well, to be fair, other "compiler option" commands don't
take commas either. For example, "Forward_Function foobar".
Such syntax is undoubtedly necessary to make the compiler aware of
an option for it rather than to compile a procedure or
function, which it would do otherwise. It makes sense
to me and I would have probably realized it if I had
taken 5 seconds to think about it, rather than typing
away. Or, I could have just looked at the example in
the book. It was pretty obvious there. :-)
Cheers,
David
P.S. Incidentally, another compiler option will make it
necessary to use square bracket subscripting for all
array subscripts. This will virtually eliminate the
need for Forward_Function, I think.
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting
Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
