comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Bug in N

Home » Public Forums » archive » Bug in N_PARAMS?

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

Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? [message #64041 is a reply to message #64011]

Mon, 01 December 2008 14:55

Mark[1]
Messages: 66
Registered: February 2008

Member

On Dec 2, 3:11 am, Jeremy Bailin <astroco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except that there are valid reasons for passing in
> an undefined variable, if it's used for output. So
> it's perfectly legitimate to want to know whether
> it was passed in without caring whether it is
> defined.

To check that an argument has been passed, and can be written to, you
can use ARG_PRESENT.

To check that a argument has been passed, and is a defined variable,
you can use N_ELEMENTS > 0.

This leaves N_PARAMS for the cases where you want to know if an
argument has been passed, but otherwise don't care about its status.
In my experience. this is pretty rare, except in what I would call
wrapper routines.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Bug in N_PARAMS? By: Kenneth P. Bowman on Mon, 24 November 2008 11:31
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: David Fanning on Tue, 02 December 2008 07:10
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: Mark[1] on Mon, 01 December 2008 14:55
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: Jeremy Bailin on Mon, 01 December 2008 06:11
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: Mark[1] on Sun, 30 November 2008 14:06
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: R.Bauer on Fri, 28 November 2008 02:02
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: pgrigis on Wed, 03 December 2008 11:15
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: David Fanning on Wed, 03 December 2008 10:49
		Re: Bug in N_PARAMS? By: R.Bauer on Wed, 03 December 2008 09:59

Previous Topic:	Re: Bug in N_PARAMS?
Next Topic:	Re: streamlines over contour without iVector

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 09:59:20 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.04161 seconds