| Re: On-the-fly compilation of routines [message #63491 is a reply to message #63334] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 06:41   |
Kenneth P. Bowman
Messages: 585
Registered: May 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <MPG.237dd652953c0f9d98a510@news.giganews.com>,
David Fanning <news@dfanning.com> wrote:
> This reminds me of a discussion we had several weeks ago that
> I forgot to follow up on. Someone was trying to compile a large
> program project with a script that did a .COMPILE on his files.
> This worked fine in some earlier version of IDL, but had the
> effect of opening hundreds of edit windows in later versions.
>
> I happened to ask about this when I was around some ITTVIS types
> who were likely to know the answer. It turns out that .COMPILE
> is now the equivalent to the command sequence .RUN/.EDIT. And
> that what the person needed to do was replace all his .COMPILE
> commands with .RUN.
>
> This sort of turns the .COMPILE command back on its head,
> since I originally argued for it on the basis that no one
> outside of RSI could figure out why .RUN only compiled and
> didn't run anything, and that is why we needed a .COMPILE
> command.
>
> Anyway, I suppose when your institutional memory leaves the
> company, it's easy to forget why you did things originally. :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
In true unix fashion, I always .r my programs to recompile them. Why type
all of those extra characters. ;-) (.com will work, but .c is not unique).
Cheers, Ken
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
