comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone?

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone? [message #23351 is a reply to message #23349]

Mon, 15 January 2001 14:04

Mirko Vukovic
Messages: 124
Registered: January 1996

Senior Member

In article <onbst8eczg.fsf@cow.physics.wisc.edu>,
craigmnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu wrote:
>
> davidf@dfanning.com (David Fanning) writes:
>> Nick Bower (bowern@ses.curtin.edu.au) writes:
>>
>>> This really sucks and it's most unfortunate that such a well-known
>>> package like this has been inadvertently clobbered without a hint
of
>>> documentation.
>>

To fix the thing on my machine, I had to do the following:

1) rename the file strtok.pro and the function name in it (I chose
StrUpToTok).

2) In file Translate_Sub_Super.pro change calls to StrTok to (in my
case) StrUpToTok on lines 227-x and 292-x (where - stands for ``minus''
and x is about 5 -- I actually increased the length of the file by
documenting the change :-))

But as Craig? pointed out, one may not be able to distribute the file
due to copyright issues.

Now, a bit off topic, where does one find the post-script codes for the
symbols, in case one extends the translation table?

Mirko

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone? By: Matt Craig on Wed, 17 January 2001 08:59
		Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone? By: landsman on Mon, 15 January 2001 15:13
		Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone? By: Mirko Vukovic on Mon, 15 January 2001 14:04

Previous Topic:	Re: An IDL STRTOK??? Was: TextoIDL Broken and Gone?
Next Topic:	Re: Merging Bytarr

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Oct 18 09:29:19 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.20219 seconds