[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plea for IDL 2000 (was: a plea for more reliable mathematical routines)
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> In article <MPG.email@example.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org (David Fanning) wrote:
> > New in IDL 5.3 (according to the on-line documentation in the beta
> > version is a "compile option" routine that can change the default
> > integer size from 16-bit to 32-bit:
> > IDL> Compile_Opt DefInt32
> > IDL> a = 0
> > IDL> Help, a
> > A LONG = 0
> > Cheers,
> > David
> > P.S. Note there is NO comma after the COMPILE_OPT
> > command! Took me about 10 minutes to realize that. :-(
> 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..
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
It seems to me that they should have a comp.lang.
specialist that would help them with routine names,
and parameter and keyword names and usages.
Sometimes a parameter is used to signal two different things.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.