[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dumb Dumb Question
- Subject: Re: Dumb Dumb Question
- From: Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(at)astrog.physics.wisc.edu>
- Date: 18 Nov 1998 13:23:13 -0600
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.idl-pvwave
- Organization: U. Wisc. Madison Physics -- Compact Objects
- References: <72srpf$sre$3@ncar.ucar.edu> <365301F5.76EACDF4@ssec.wisc.edu>
- Reply-To: craigmnet(at)astrog.physics.wisc.edu
- Xref: news.doit.wisc.edu comp.lang.idl-pvwave:12853
Liam Gumley <Liam.Gumley@ssec.wisc.edu> writes:
>
>
> "When calling a routine with a keyword parameter, you can abbreviate the
> keyword to its shortest, unambiguous abbrevation".
>
> Cheers,
> Liam.
>
I have been bitten by this alot. I have often wanted to have keywords
like TIME, TIMEBIN, TIMECOL in the same procedure. For some reason
it's perfectly legal to compile such a procedure, but I can never use
the "TIME" keyword because it's ambiguous.
I would much prefer that the IDL byte compiler would issue a *warning*
when an ambiguity like that appears. I think that when a procedure is
called with "TIME=xxx", and that exact keyword exists, then there
should be no ambiguity.
Craig
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@astrog.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------