Re: Am I stupid?

[Paul van Delst <paul.vandelst(at)noaa.gov>]

Bill wrote:
> 
> A better way to describe what could, but is not, implemented for IDL's keywords is a multise
> stage process
> 
> 1. If a keyword on an invocation exactly matches a keyword in the functions's definition then it
> is that keyword, else
> 
> 2. if the  keyord on invocation is an abbreviation for exactly one keyword in the functions's
> definitition then it is that keyword, else
> 
> 3. It is an error that can be determined statically.

I understand your point (and Jaco's and James'.... and Craig's too I think) but, to me,
the above rules are defined with only the programmer's (i.e. the person that wrote the
code that has some potential for ambiguousness (?) in the keywords) viewpoint.

My main, err, discomfort with allowing "The keyword is too short to be unique, therefore
it is unabbreviated" type of behaviour is that it does not take into account the person
who is using this code cold and is not an IDL whiz. I think that with a little bit of
forethought, these issues can be eliminated by the code writer to save the puir wee
unsuspecting future IDL user from some code that was written with potential ambiguous
keyword problems. To paraphrase Reverend Lovejoy's wife: "will somebody *please* think of
the users!" :o)

Phew.

O.k., no more poking pointy sticks at windmills for me. :o)

paulv

-- 
Paul van Delst           A little learning is a dangerous thing;
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP        Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7274  There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
Fax:(301)763-8545        And drinking largely sobers us again.
                                         Alexander Pope.