That's a useful feature. Anyone else know of any? I've noticed that unidata is accomodating about letting you run subroutines as though they were programs, and calling programs as though they were subroutines. Is that an advantage or something scary?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of phil walker > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:21 PM > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: RE: [U2] Custom Functions -> UV or UD > > > One I can thing of, and I normally work on UV and prefer, is > that you can debug programs which interact with file which > have triggers on them. In UV this is not possible and is seen > as an enhancement! > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, 25 June 2005 1:46 a.m. > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: RE: [U2] Custom Functions > > Well, the idea was to produce something that could be called > as a function from basic, because the function calling syntax > is cool and convenient in a lot of cases, but that could also > be used in a I-type. For things to work in SUBR in an i-type, > you need that extra parameter. Of course you could maintain > two versions--a simple function, and then a subroutine > wrapper around the function to use in the i-type. I was > trying to avoid that. And, if you're using universe, you can > just use the function in the i-type anyway. > > The more I see of it, the more unidata feels like universe's > really poor relative. Which begs the question--given a > choice, why would one pick unidata over universe? ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
