| Re: IDL 8.0 bug -- line number of errors not given [message #72881 is a reply to message #72879] |
Wed, 13 October 2010 07:50   |
![Paul Van Delst[1] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "Paul Van Delst[1] is currently offline")
Paul Van Delst[1]
Messages: 1157
Registered: April 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
wlandsman wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:16 pm, Paul van Delst <paul.vande...@noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>> Maybe people should start switching to using CATCH instead for their day-to-day error handling?
>
> OK, here's my simpleton reason for not using CATCH. If I use
> ON_ERROR I just add 1 line of code at the beginning of each procedure
>
> On_error, 2
>
> But if I use CATCH I need to add a whole paragraph somewhere (where?)
> in the code
>
> Catch, theError
> IF theError NE 0 THEN BEGIN
> Catch, /Cancel
> void = Error_Message()
> RETURN
> END
Oh yes, I agree - using CATCH is a more verbose method. Applying the DRY[*] principle, what I do for a particular
application is to create include files for functions and procedures (say "func_err_handler.pro" and
"pro_err_handler.pro") and then simply include them right at the top of functions/procedures. E.g:
function testfunc, a, b, c
@func_err_handler
....
end
pro testpro, a, b, c
@pro_err_handler
....
end
I don't think it's an ideal solution (it's still a bit "wet") but I have isolated everything CATCH-y in two files. Easy
to change if I need to.
With a bit more thought, one could probably come up with content for these include files that are applicable throughout
ones entire library of routines.
> So what are the advantages of using CATCH?
It's not "ON_ERROR, 2"? :o)
> (This is not a trick
> question -- I've had a mental block about how to use CATCH.) --Wayne
cheers,
paulv
[*] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DontRepeatYourself
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
