Re: IDL Bug? (Re: include files in IDL programs)

[dsreyn(at)ll.mit.edu (Doug Reynolds)]

In article <MPG.147f134c4803b032989c87@news.frii.com>,
 davidf@dfanning.com (David Fanning) writes:
>Doug Reynolds (dsreyn@ll.mit.edu) writes:
>
>> Agreed.  However, since the Unix world allows file names to mix upper and
>> lower case, I believe this should be documented.  The information on pp. 52-53
>> of the IDL 5.4 "Using IDL" manual makes no mention of case restrictions,
>> which implicitly suggests that anything goes.
>
>I looked up "automatic compilation" in the on-line help.
>Here is what I find:
>
>*********************************************************************
>Automatic Execution
>
>IDL automatically compiles and executes a user-written function or procedure 
>when it is first referenced if:
>
>1.	The source code of the function is in the current working directory or 
>in a directory in the IDL search path defined by the system variable !PATH.
>2.	The name of the file containing the function is the same as the 
>function name suffixed by .pro or .sav. Under UNIX, the suffix should be in 
>lowercase letters.
>
>Note - IDL is case-insensitive. However, for some operating systems, IDL only 
>checks for the lowercase filename based on the name of the procedure or 
>function. We recommend that all filenames be named with lowercase.
>******************************************************************************

Well, that's certainly clear enough.  It seems odd that they don't bother
to mention this in the printed manuals.

>> >It does this *specifically* so these programs will run on UNIX machines.
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean here.  In the case I presented, the effect it
>> has is that the routine does *not* run.
>
>I mean that in a case-sensitive OS, IDL would have no hope
>of finding filenames unless some convention were used. The
>convention it uses (the most sensible, it seems to me) is
>that filenames are in lowercase characters.

OK, now I see what you meant.

Doug