comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado
Home » Public Forums » archive » Am I stupid?
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: Am I stupid? [message #25853 is a reply to message #25739] Wed, 18 July 2001 23:47 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
R.Bauer is currently offline  R.Bauer
Messages: 1424
Registered: November 1998
Senior Member
Paul van Delst wrote:
>
> Bill wrote:
>>
>> A better way to describe what could, but is not, implemented for IDL's keywords is a multise
>> stage process
>>
>> 1. If a keyword on an invocation exactly matches a keyword in the functions's definition then it
>> is that keyword, else
>>
>> 2. if the keyord on invocation is an abbreviation for exactly one keyword in the functions's
>> definitition then it is that keyword, else
>>
>> 3. It is an error that can be determined statically.
>
> I understand your point (and Jaco's and James'.... and Craig's too I think) but, to me,
> the above rules are defined with only the programmer's (i.e. the person that wrote the
> code that has some potential for ambiguousness (?) in the keywords) viewpoint.
>
> My main, err, discomfort with allowing "The keyword is too short to be unique, therefore
> it is unabbreviated" type of behaviour is that it does not take into account the person
> who is using this code cold and is not an IDL whiz. I think that with a little bit of
> forethought, these issues can be eliminated by the code writer to save the puir wee
> unsuspecting future IDL user from some code that was written with potential ambiguous
> keyword problems. To paraphrase Reverend Lovejoy's wife: "will somebody *please* think of
> the users!" :o)
>
> Phew.
>
> O.k., no more poking pointy sticks at windmills for me. :o)


So this means no keywords only _extra and own rules to interpret
_extra as keywords.

Only a few new idl programmers will understand what's _extra is doing.

With one of the rsi internal routines we can create inside the routine
the variables
A and A1 and then they are not ambigous.

But what do we win and what not if we do so?

The routine itselfs has no keywords and normally these keyword names
well
defined and described and normally I see by this keywords what's the
routine is able to
do and what is missing.

A routine written in this way has different rules which are defined only
by the programmer.

Only a few special things will be better to use.


pro stupid,_extra=e
tn=tag_names(e)
print,tn[0]+'='+string(e.(0))
print,tn[1]+'='+string(e.(1))
end


Please could we make a list which rsi idl library routines has these
problems.




regards
Reimar

--
Reimar Bauer

Institut fuer Stratosphaerische Chemie (ICG-1)
Forschungszentrum Juelich
email: R.Bauer@fz-juelich.de
http://www.fz-juelich.de/icg/icg1/
============================================================ ======
a IDL library at ForschungsZentrum Juelich
http://www.fz-juelich.de/icg/icg1/idl_icglib/idl_lib_intro.h tml

http://www.fz-juelich.de/zb/text/publikation/juel3786.html
============================================================ ======

read something about linux / windows
http://www.suse.de/de/news/hotnews/MS.html

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: polar contours over maps
Next Topic: Where is the largest point ?

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

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 04:40:29 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.11994 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.7.
Copyright ©2001-2013 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software