comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » JULDAY 5.4 not same as 5.3?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: JULDAY 5.4 not same as 5.3? [message #24037 is a reply to message #23992] Tue, 06 March 2001 09:23 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
pit is currently offline  pit
Messages: 92
Registered: January 1996
Member
"Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> writes:

>> And what would you do with a number like -('ffffffff'xul), ie a number
>> that to begin with is too large to fit into a signed type.
>
> Now, that is a good point.
>
> There are other situations where auto-magical type conversion could save
> programmers' skins but is not done by IDL, e.g. 32767S + 1S evaluates
> to -32767S, not 32768L. Hands up who hasn't been stung by that one!

That were exactly my thoughts when I was thinking about the -1b
problem lately, and was the reason I didn't ask here at that time.
Just as a similar problem showed up, I decided to shout ;^>

So the essence is boundary checks are (and should stay) a work for the
programmer (which is perfectly OK for me....).

Peter

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Peter "Pit" Suetterlin http://www.astro.uu.nl/~suetter
Sterrenkundig Instituut Utrecht
Tel.: +31 (0)30 253 5225 P.Suetterlin@astro.uu.nl
____________________________________________________________ ______________
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Linux and 3D graphics hardware support
Next Topic: BETTER FONTS

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sun Oct 12 10:41:41 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.23862 seconds