comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler

Home » Public Forums » archive » Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler

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

Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler [message #28269 is a reply to message #28197]

Tue, 27 November 2001 11:13

Liam E. Gumley
Messages: 378
Registered: January 2000

Senior Member

Craig Markwardt wrote:
[stuff deleted]
> In fact, I am not sure that IDL makes any guarantees about order of
> evaluation and side effects.

For an explanation of operator precedence:

IDL> ? operator precedence

In short, it's not the order of evaluation that matters: it's the
precedence of the operators in the expression. The order matters only
when you have operators of equal precedence, in which case the
expression is evaluated from left to right.

As the documentation says, "when in doubt, parenthesize".

Cheers,
Liam.
Practical IDL Programming
http://www.gumley.com/

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Martin Downing on Mon, 26 November 2001 07:38
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Pavel A. Romashkin on Tue, 27 November 2001 09:24
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Paul van Delst on Tue, 27 November 2001 10:46
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Martin Downing on Tue, 27 November 2001 02:42
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Craig Markwardt on Mon, 26 November 2001 21:42
		Re: Use of Temporary( ) vs an Optimised Compiler By: Liam E. Gumley on Tue, 27 November 2001 11:13

Previous Topic:	Re: removing old IDL versions
Next Topic:	Automatic truncation of trailing dimension.....

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 17:46:32 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00508 seconds