Dear NCL developers,
> function definitions matters ?! This does not make sense to me, since
> one cannot always know the ordering of the function calls.
I also support Jack. This gives some minor problems when organising
functionality into libraries. One has to always make sure of the order of the
"loaded" user libraries. It would be nice if this restriction was
relaxed.
saji
-- * Jack Glendening <ncarg_drjack_at_drjack.info> [2009-06-26 17:46:33 -0700]: > Using NCL 5.0.0, I have sets of functions in two files which I load > immediately one after the other ala > > load "FunctionsFile_A" > load "FunctionsFile_B" > NCL COMMANDS WHICH CALL FUNCTIONS IN THE ABOVE FILES > > I just altered one of the functions in "FucntionsFile_A" to utilize a > new function "nintspan". When I placed the new function at the top of > "FunctionsFile_A" it worked. But if I moved the new function to > "FunctionsFile_B" I got the message "fatal:Undefined identifier: > (nintspan) is undefined". So apparently the the ordering of the > function definitions matters ?! This does not make sense to me, since > one cannot always know the ordering of the function calls. > > Jack Glendening > > _______________________________________________ > ncl-talk mailing list > List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe: > http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talk > -- Saji N. Hameed APEC Climate Center 1463 U-dong, Haeundae-gu, +82 51 745 3951 BUSAN 612-020, KOREA saji_at_apcc21.net Fax: +82-51-745-3999 _______________________________________________ ncl-talk mailing list List instructions, subscriber options, unsubscribe: http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/ncl-talkReceived on Fri Jun 26 2009 - 19:00:38 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 29 2009 - 10:19:05 MDT