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

Re: User selectable lower array bound?

In article <3B6F037D.B17A6287@astro.cornell.edu>,
JD Smith  <jdsmith@astro.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Paul van Delst wrote:
>> "Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote:
>> >
>> > Craig Markwardt wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Well, as grumpy as I have been in the past about IDL
>wishes, this is
>> > > one thing I do not want to have in IDL now!
>> >
>> > I am with you Craig. Besides, for the purists of array
>indexing, I think
>> > it is unfair to dasignate a *lower* array bounds. We don't
>designate the
>> > *upper* one.
>> In the context of initially declaring an array in IDL, sure you do:
>> x = fltarr(10)
>> declares the upper bound as 9. We also designate a lower
>bound: 0. The difference between
>> the two is that I can change the former.
     So how about if {flt,dbl,complex,int,lon,dcomplex,byt,str}arr
and make_array could accept both the form shown above and this form:

	y = fltarr(-5:10)

which would declare the lower bound as -5 and the upper bound as 9,
giving a total of 16 elements, including the zero element?  This
isn't quite as nice as PL/1's method because of the zero element,
but it would be usable and wouldn't break any existing code.  Future
programs would have to take into consideration that

	y = fltarr(-5:-1)

would have a lower bound of -5 and an upper bound of -1, giving
a total of only 5 elements due to the lack of a zero element.  PL/1's
syntax avoided this problem by having the lower bound default to 1
if not coded, but I think I could live with it as long as I were
aware of it.

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
                                  College of Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                  Oregon State University
                                  Corvallis, Oregon 97331
* Internet:       sbennett at oce.orst.edu                           *
* "Lay then the axe to the root, and teach governments humanity.     *
* It is their sanguinary punishments which corrupt mankind."         *
*    -- _The_Rights_of_Man_ by Tom Paine (1791.)                     *