comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » IDL 8.0 compile

Home » Public Forums » archive » IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes

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

Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes [message #69241 is a reply to message #69187]

Sun, 27 December 2009 19:44

penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018

Senior Member
Administrator

On Dec 26, 7:21 pm, "H. Evans" <bloggs...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So, what's the problem with using a "new" syntax that involves the
> comment character? This is what happens with numerous Unix shell
> scripts. For example:
>
> ;!compile_opt idl1
>
> which would not break old code, but would inform the new version that
> the old syntax should be used when interpreting the .pro file. This
> could/should be the first line of the file. This would make converting
> older files a doddle with the flexibility of setting the default
> compile_opt to idl2 while at the same time not breaking the file for
> older versions of IDL. Ideally a flexible syntax should be specified
> (could even be XML format if we really wanted to be absurd) that can
> be encapsulated in the commented header of a file.
>
> I'm still partial to a new file extension, though. As mentioned
> before, it worked quite well with the FORTRAN community (and let's
> face it, there hasn't been a compiled computer language to rival
> Fortran developed in the last 20 years.). And let's not forget that
> minor, but much needed upgrade to c: c++.

I used Fortran as an example because C++ is so far from C that it
seems more like a new language rather than an upgrade. But same as
Fortran, they also generally use the same compilers, which decide what
to do based on the file extension.

An example of the trouble of a backward-incompatible update keeping
the same extension is the current situation with Python. Python 3 has
been out for about one year now, and still some major Linux
distributions ship with Python 2, because of all the old software that
would not work unchanged. Which slows down the transition, forcing the
use of the older version in new software being developed now.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: chris_torrence@NOSPAM on Fri, 18 December 2009 13:51
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: wlandsman on Mon, 28 December 2009 04:36
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Sun, 27 December 2009 19:44
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: H. Evans on Sat, 26 December 2009 13:21
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: alt on Fri, 25 December 2009 02:30
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Thu, 24 December 2009 08:49
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: wlandsman on Thu, 24 December 2009 05:07
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: David Fanning on Thu, 24 December 2009 03:44
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Wed, 23 December 2009 22:13
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: David Fanning on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:48
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: proffmw@gmail.com on Wed, 23 December 2009 20:08
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Wed, 06 January 2010 10:35
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: JDS on Fri, 08 January 2010 13:42
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Matt[2] on Wed, 06 January 2010 08:18
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Yngvar Larsen on Wed, 06 January 2010 07:29
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: David Fanning on Wed, 06 January 2010 07:13
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Yngvar Larsen on Wed, 06 January 2010 07:12
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Kenneth P. Bowman on Wed, 06 January 2010 06:52
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Yngvar Larsen on Wed, 06 January 2010 06:56
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Michael Galloy on Wed, 06 January 2010 13:52
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Maarten[1] on Wed, 06 January 2010 06:01
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Michael Galloy on Wed, 06 January 2010 13:25
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Tue, 05 January 2010 15:54
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: JDS on Tue, 05 January 2010 14:41
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Thu, 07 January 2010 08:35
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: monkman on Tue, 05 January 2010 13:51
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: David Fanning on Tue, 05 January 2010 11:17
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: chris_torrence@NOSPAM on Tue, 05 January 2010 10:58
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: chris_torrence@NOSPAM on Tue, 05 January 2010 10:57
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: pgrigis on Tue, 05 January 2010 06:57
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: R.Bauer on Tue, 05 January 2010 06:09
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: David Fanning on Mon, 04 January 2010 11:58
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: chris_torrence@NOSPAM on Mon, 04 January 2010 11:41
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: R.Bauer on Mon, 04 January 2010 02:30
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Jeremy Bailin on Tue, 29 December 2009 21:31
		Ruby range operators? Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Paul Van Delst[1] on Fri, 08 January 2010 13:16
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: penteado on Fri, 08 January 2010 05:36
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Maarten[1] on Fri, 08 January 2010 04:19
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: H. Evans on Fri, 08 January 2010 01:29
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Michael Galloy on Thu, 07 January 2010 09:56
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: Maarten[1] on Thu, 07 January 2010 07:27
		Re: IDL 8.0 compile_opt changes By: wallabadah on Wed, 06 January 2010 16:30

Previous Topic:	Re: envi_title_bar.ico missing and null pointer dereferenced error when using .sav file in ENVI
Next Topic:	A routine to annotate PS files

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 18:26:16 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00627 seconds