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

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Simple bug in IDL 5.4 compiler under Win2000
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: Simple bug in IDL 5.4 compiler under Win2000 [message #27670 is a reply to message #27521] Mon, 29 October 2001 08:55 Go to previous message
tam is currently offline  tam
Messages: 48
Registered: February 2000
Member
I note that my old version 4 IDL User's Guide explicitly describes 1D as
a double precision constant (p 3-3). Same is true in V5's
Building IDL Applications (p 15). In the context of describing doubles
whose values happen to be integral, I don't see why it's any sloppier
than the equivalent 1B or 1L used for other types.

Regards,
Tom McGlynn


William Thompson wrote:
>
> Joe Means <joe.means@orst.edu> writes:
>
>> Rick,
>> Regarding your question about whether this behavior is a bug, my
>> rationale for saying so is that it the offending statement contains no
>> incorrect IDL syntax that I can see.
>> Joe
>
> Actually, I would argue that writing a number as simply "1d" is incorrect
> syntax, or at least sloppy syntax. IDL lets you get away with it in most cases
> (obviously not here), but the number really should be written as "1d0".
>
> Sorry, I don't mean to come off as harsh.
>
> William Thompson
>
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: IDL 5.5 jpeg and tiff
Next Topic: How-to? color png

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

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 17:58:41 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00400 seconds