comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Functions and arrays
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Functions and arrays [message #7566 is a reply to message #7562] Fri, 06 December 1996 00:00 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Tim Patterson is currently offline  Tim Patterson
Messages: 65
Registered: October 1995
Member
William Clodius wrote:
>

>
> Allowing '[]' to replace '()' may be a good idea, but it can provide a
> maintenance problem for old code.
>

IMHO such a change would cause too many problems with maintenance.
I'm working on a very large software package (10's of thousands
of lines of IDL code) that has to run on both highest
and lowest common demoninator IDL systems (currently 4.0.1
is the lcd). If IDL 5.0+ changed the syntax, I'd have to have
2 copies of the code, not to mention the time it would take
to update the old code to the new standard. Unfortunately, due
to IDL's high prices at present, I couldn't persuade all my
users to upgrade to IDL 5.0.

I think having a choice of either () or [] would also be
confusing and bad practise. It seems to me that the compiler
checking for and flagging/resolving these problems is the
best solution. Especially as no programmer would try and give an
array and a function the same name in the same routine, would they? :)

Tim
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: exp function bug
Next Topic: Re: Q regarding spawning in windows95

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 10:21:47 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.72334 seconds