[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*Subject*: Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?*From*: Jack Saba <jack.saba(at)gsfc.nasa.gov>*Date*: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 09:40:44 -0500*Newsgroups*: comp.lang.idl-pvwave*Organization*: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA*References*: <78s23o$525$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36b57934.0@news.nwl.ac.uk> <793vuv$euv$1@readme.uio.no> <36b5d66b.0@news.nwl.ac.uk> <796jda$c52$1@readme.uio.no>*Xref*: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:13516

Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan wrote: > : > The problem is the "null" - it ought to be something other than an > integer/long/long64. Ok, so maybe -2LL^63 would do... and of course > you'd need to keep compatible, so you need WHERE(..,/null) > : > > How'bout {} ? :-) I'm not *just* kidding. [] work as both array > constructors and indexing brackets, so {} could work as both > structure constructors and indexing brackets.. Differences in function based on differences in types of brackets will lead to confusion -- in part because of the difficulty of distinguishing { and [ and ( in some fonts. The idea of a switch on the WHERE function sounds much better.

**References**:**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?***From:*wmc

**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?***From:*Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan

**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?***From:*wmc

**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?***From:*Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan

- Prev by Date:
**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?** - Next by Date:
**!P.MULTI + POSITION keyword problem** - Prev by thread:
**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?** - Next by thread:
**Re: N_ELEMENTS and WHERE: Scalar or Array ?** - Index(es):