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 #69255 is a reply to message #69187]

Thu, 24 December 2009 08:49

penteado
Messages: 866
Registered: February 2018

Senior Member
Administrator

On Dec 24, 11:07 am, wlandsman <wlands...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe it would be better then to have a flag (or separate icon) when
> starting up IDL, e.g.
>
> idl -classic
>
> that would recognize the parentheses indexing (and thus *not*
> recognize the new method syntax). This would ensure that users
> could run their old code, but also encourage them to take the 20
> minutes to automatically convert their code to use square bracket
> indices. (Note that IDL currently knows when () is used as an index
> and when it is used for a function in a pre-8.0 procedure -- since it
> knows the names of all variables -- so the conversion can certainly be
> automated.) --Wayne

I would not say that the conversion can be automated. The current
criteria to decide whether something is a function or variable depend
not only on the defined variables, but also on the known functions, at
the time the reference is encountered. The trouble happens if there
are both a function and a variable with the same name. If the
reference is found before the function is compiled, it is taken to be
a variable. If the function happens to have been compiled, the
reference is taken to be a function. So the conversion of a file does
not depend only on its contents, but also on the environment when the
file is read. And as many other topics here indicate, routine name
resolution is fraught with difficulties.

What could be automated is to add the compile opt to, say, all
routines found in a directory. The trouble is that those files would
no longer work on older versions because of the idl1, so it is not a
good solution either. Having a switch or a preference making the
interpreter work the old way is better than making idl2 the default
all the time. But it has the problem that one would not be able to run
both old and new code during the same session, so it would still pose
an obstacle to change, though a smaller one. Which is why I still see
a new extension as a better choice.

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: Fri Oct 10 17:29:49 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00320 seconds