comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: User selectable lower array bound?

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: User selectable lower array bound?

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

Re: User selectable lower array bound? [message #26223 is a reply to message #25978]

Wed, 08 August 2001 23:39

Jeff Guerber
Messages: 41
Registered: July 2000

Member

On 3 Aug 2001 bennetsc@NOSPAMucs.orst.edu wrote:

>> It seems like such a simple thing to be able to do (with default
>> action being start at
>> index 0) although I'm sure the amount of work required to
>> implement this would be
>> horrendous. Still, it shur would be nice.....
>>
> That depends upon how IDL already keeps track of arrays
> internally. In PL/1, for example, one declared an array with the
> boundaries for each dimension in the form lowerbound:upperbound,
> where specification of the lower bound and the colon were optional.
> If only the upper bound were specified, then the lower bound defaulted
> to 1. In its internal representation of arrays, IIRC, PL/1 kept
> the lower and upper boundaries of each dimension as part of a control
> block preceding the actual array memory. If a language implementation
> doesn't already store both boundaries, or equivalently, the lower
> boundary and number of elements, for each dimension, then yes, adding
> such support might well be a major headache.

Well, IDL does perform bounds checking, even for arrays passed into a
procedure as arguments, so it must already store at least either the upper
bound or the number of elements (which are equivalent since the lower
bound is fixed). It's likely that this is only done in one place, so
implementing lower bounds in the IDL core might not be all _that_ much
work. HOWEVER...

Having thought about this further, I now think the more serious problem
would be all the library procedures (and not just RSI's!) that assume you
can loop over the elements of any array by going from 0 to
n_elements(array)-1. (Aiiigh!) Unless the bounds are lost across
procedure calls (as Paul pointed out that Fortran does), which can
sometimes be useful but which kind of defeats the point of having
definable bounds, if you ask me.

Jeff Guerber
Raytheon ITSS
NASA Goddard Space Flight Ctr
Oceans & Ice Branch (code 971)

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: bennetsc on Thu, 02 August 2001 17:52
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: Jeff Guerber on Thu, 02 August 2001 17:39
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: btt on Mon, 06 August 2001 06:23
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: david[2] on Mon, 06 August 2001 07:45
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: Paul van Delst on Fri, 03 August 2001 07:08
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: Paul van Delst on Fri, 03 August 2001 07:36
		Re: User selectable lower array bound? By: Jeff Guerber on Wed, 08 August 2001 23:39

Previous Topic:	Re: IDL virtual reality (was 3D Object IDL )
Next Topic:	IDL virtual reality (was 3D Object IDL )

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 10:07:00 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.32042 seconds