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

*Subject*: Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)*From*: davidf(at)dfanning.com (David Fanning)*Date*: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:07:42 -0600*Newsgroups*: comp.lang.idl-pvwave*Organization*: Fanning Software Consulting*References*: <7r90g4$rqb$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37D82EA9.BA62A369@wellesley.edu> <7r9jbl$aem$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37DCCE9A.F1AC4BF1@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <MPG.1246a891f3c895e19898eb@news.frii.com> <37DE1600.5E99BDE4@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <MPG.124804e8864d03df9898ec@news.frii.com> <7rq9gg$f14$2@alster.dkrz.de> <MPG.124ad31447ec3ccd9898f7@news.frii.com> <7rsidq$j5s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>*Xref*: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:16604

Greg (ushomirs@my-deja.com) writes: > see! that's yet another example of how poorly thought out IDL is!! > other directives (such as .RUN, .COMPILE) don't need a comma after > their names. Why not make it .COMPILE_OPT, so that the lack of comma > would at least make sense? I guess that would be too reasonable and > well thought-out for RSI.. sigh.. Well, to be fair, other "compiler option" commands don't take commas either. For example, "Forward_Function foobar". Such syntax is undoubtedly necessary to make the compiler aware of an option for it rather than to compile a procedure or function, which it would do otherwise. It makes sense to me and I would have probably realized it if I had taken 5 seconds to think about it, rather than typing away. Or, I could have just looked at the example in the book. It was pretty obvious there. :-) Cheers, David P.S. Incidentally, another compiler option will make it necessary to use square bracket subscripting for all array subscripts. This will virtually eliminate the need for Forward_Function, I think. -- David Fanning, Ph.D. Fanning Software Consulting Phone: 970-221-0438 E-Mail: davidf@dfanning.com Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/ Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155

**References**:**ODEPACK***From:*ushomirs

**a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*Richard G. French

**Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*ushomirs

**Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*FIT

**Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*David Fanning

**Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*FIT

**Re: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines***From:*David Fanning

**Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)***From:*Martin.Schultz@dkrz.de

**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)***From:*David Fanning

**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)***From:*ushomirs

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)** - Next by Date:
**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)** - Prev by thread:
**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)** - Next by thread:
**Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)** - Index(es):