| Re: Who's up for breaking IDL? [message #36003 is a reply to message #35824] |
Mon, 04 August 2003 10:06   |
R.G. Stockwell
Messages: 363
Registered: July 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"David Fanning" <david@dfanning.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19983a015914c4269896c7@news.frii.com...
> R.G. Stockwell writes:
>
>> However, I think the example shown by the original poster, which
>> used a literal string of the correct case, should have worked, and
>> the fact that it didn't is a bug.
>>
>> IDL> resolve_routine, 'Resolve_Me'
>> % Attempt to call undefined procedure/function: 'RESOLVE_ME'.
>> % Execution halted at: $MAIN$
>>
>> It seems like IDL took a string constant 'Resolve_Me' and changed
>> it to a different string constant 'RESOLVE_ME'.
>
> Bob, I think maybe you are missing the intention
> of the RESOLVE_ALL and it companion RESOLVE_ROUTINE
Yes, I am missing the intention.
> I think the designers figured that anybody who
> simply wanted to *compile* a routine would probably
> use the aptly named COMPILE command to do so. (Or,
> the completely misnamed RUN command, but that's
> another story.) I am 100% sure (although I have
> no case sensitive operating system here to check)
> that the .Compile command would work in the manner
> the user expected from the RESOVE_ROUTINE command. :-)
Yes, you are right. The following fails
IDL> .comp resolve_me
while the following does indeed work
IDL> .comp Resolve_Me
I hereby withdraw to the comfortable confines of under my rock.
Cheers,
bob
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
