| Re: Automatic Compiliation of IDL Programs, Was: Lost Functions [message #10230] |
Thu, 06 November 1997 00:00  |
Stein Vidar Hagfors H
Messages: 32
Registered: May 1997
|
Member |
|
|
M. Hegde wrote:
[..]
> Major deficiency with IDL compiled state is that it doesn't even check
> whether calling function(/procedure)'s argument list matches with the
> compiled one. So if one makes a spelling error, the program will crash
> at runtime. If the software is of considerable size, chances are that
> one might miss that particular state during testing; whereas a simple check
> would have avoided that.
On the other hand, with IDL being an interpreting language, it allows
dynamically created (or modified) programs (which are compiled only
when *called* during runtime, not when *referenced* during compilation
of another procedure).
In fact I do have some programs which writes procedures "on the fly",
compiling them as they are needed - obviously this could cause
problems if syntax checking was performed at compile-time (not
very hard to fix, though).
But it would certainly be nice to have a few extra tools to manage
large IDL software collections - e.g., checking for number of
parameters,
legality of keywords, etc..
> Say if one's display library contains 20 different files and if they were
> modified after compilation, to recompile one has to type 20 .Runs or quit
> the session and start all over again !
Actually, you can type e.g., ".run prog1 prog2 prog3 prog4 prog5"....
Usually, when working on a large set of routines in one "session",
I put such statements into a file, e.g., "c.pro", and then I simply
type "@c" when I need to recompile...
(And when working with the idl-shell mode, my fingers seem to
have a will of their own, typing ^C-^D-^C (saving and recompiling)
faster than I can think)
> This feature might be good for running few things from IDL prompt. But as a
> programmer, I would like to better manage source code instead of pondering
> each time I call a function whether IDL would have compiled it before.
I do agree with you, I just haven't experienced IDL's standard
"compile-when-needed" approach as a problem. I agree that you may
get a silly number of tiny procedures, but it's always possible
to put them into one file (let's say, "stringlib.pro") and then
have a procedure at the end of that called STRINGLIB. If the user
wishes to use the string library - have the statement "stringlib"
in the startup file.
And let a stand-alone program (IDL procedure or otherwise) do the
syntax/parameter checking.
Regards,
Stein Vidar
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
