| Re: Interesting WHERE function gotcha [message #34007 is a reply to message #33936] |
Mon, 10 February 2003 20:24   |
Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JD Smith <jdsmith@as.arizona.edu> writes:
>
> Notice I said "changes and improvements". You pick which is
> applicable ;). The truth is, I was once told by a top RSI developer,
> "If I were designing IDL over, there would be no scalars, just arrays
> of various dimensionality." Given that we can't go back there, I'm
> not sure which is better, lots of little workarounds, or just living
> with the pain. I for one tend to throw a lot of [0] indexing
> statements in for good measure.
I think of scalars and one element arrays quite differently. I'm glad
IDL keeps them separate. Actually, in a parallel universe where
scalars didn't exist, I'm sure we'd all be complaining about something
else.
Alter-discussion:
JC Smith: "Research Cisterns Incorporated has just added something new
called scalars!"
Stein Hagdorf: "Oh, no, that just adds another exception to all my
array processing! SOHO will crash!"
Clyde Markwardt: "Gosh darnit! REFORM won't work on those new
scalars. Can't they fix the old stuff before adding new stuff?"
David Franning: "Well, at least typing less of those []'s is going to
make my tennis elbow better!"
Yours,
Clyde
[ P.S. REFORM still doesn't work on scalars. ]
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Clyde B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: clydemnet@cow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
