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 #69327 is a reply to message #69187]

Wed, 06 January 2010 06:52

Kenneth P. Bowman
Messages: 585
Registered: May 2000

Senior Member

In article
<5e4a2c1a-4de9-4a4e-8399-f5ec724e150c@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
JD Smith <jdtsmith.nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 1. Overloading structure dereference and method invocation breaks the
> ability to semantically parse a.

I have been following this discussion and trying to understand the
implications. I don't claim any expertise in compiler construction
or parsing methods. I think I agree with JD on this one, though.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem with parentheses in
IDL is that they can mean two different things (array subscripting
or function referencing). This is partially remedied by allowing
(but not absolutely requiring) square brackets for subscripting.

Now the idea is to create a similar ambiguity with the dot operator?
And the main justification is to make IDL read more like Python?
As someone who uses structures a *lot*, but not objects, I can see
the potential for serious confusion, by the programmer, if not by the
parser. I can also hardly wait to try teaching this to beginning
programmers.

"The dot operator is used to indicate a structure field, except
it can also mean to use an object method. What's an object
method? Oh, we haven't gotten to that yet, but when you read
someone else's programs, make sure you know the difference."

I love JD's example

> self.limit, self.limit

A compiler option to force double precision floating point
constants and variables would be very useful to me
(DEFFLT64?).

If this change is radical enough to require a new file suffix,
shouldn't the opportunity be taken to change so many other
"minor" issues, like default 2-byte integers?

Cheers, Ken

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 18:15:11 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00218 seconds