I am writing a function that fits an ellipse to a 2*N array of
points.  There are three values to return: the center, semi-major
axis, and semi-minor axis.  This is a simple program, but it brings up
a more general question: what is the preferred IDL way to return
multiple values from a function?

Currently, my program returns a structure containing the elements
{center, major, minor}.  However, a lot of built-in IDL routines take
named variable inputs that are set to the appropriate value on output
- so instead of something like:

  ellipse_struct = fit_ellipse(points)

I would have:

  fit_ellipse, points, center, major, minor

I'm not sure which is better.  C programming has taught me to
appreciate structures, but I'd like to code in the conventions of the
language.  Which would you prefer, and why?

In article 
<6a9748b9-2b9e-4401-ab30-e65d354b6c35@y4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
 James <donjeezy@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am writing a function that fits an ellipse to a 2*N array of
> points.  There are three values to return: the center, semi-major
> axis, and semi-minor axis.  This is a simple program, but it brings up
> a more general question: what is the preferred IDL way to return
> multiple values from a function?
> 
> Currently, my program returns a structure containing the elements
> {center, major, minor}.  However, a lot of built-in IDL routines take
> named variable inputs that are set to the appropriate value on output
> - so instead of something like:
> 
>   ellipse_struct = fit_ellipse(points)
> 
> I would have:
> 
>   fit_ellipse, points, center, major, minor
> 
> I'm not sure which is better.  C programming has taught me to
> appreciate structures, but I'd like to code in the conventions of the
> language.  Which would you prefer, and why?

It depends on the situation.  Use whichever is more convenient.

Ken Bowman

In article
<6a9748b9-2b9e-4401-ab30-e65d354b6c35@y4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
James <donjeezy@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am writing a function that fits an ellipse to a 2*N array of
> points.  There are three values to return: the center, semi-major
> axis, and semi-minor axis.  This is a simple program, but it brings up
> a more general question: what is the preferred IDL way to return
> multiple values from a function?
>
> Currently, my program returns a structure containing the elements
> {center, major, minor}.  However, a lot of built-in IDL routines take
> named variable inputs that are set to the appropriate value on output
> - so instead of something like:
>
>   ellipse_struct = fit_ellipse(points)
>
> I would have:
>
>   fit_ellipse, points, center, major, minor
>
> I'm not sure which is better.  C programming has taught me to
> appreciate structures, but I'd like to code in the conventions of the
> language.  Which would you prefer, and why?



My personal preference is to return a structure. They tell you what each 
element is, and it has a pleasing "input goes in, output comes out" format. 
I have always found the procedure call of inputting outputs somewhat 
unpleasant.  When some variables are in  some out out, some are undefined, 
some must defined to be within a certain range and a certain variable type, 
then the function call does not make obvious what is happening.

ellipse.center   for me is more meaningful and more readable than a,b,c


and frankly, just for job security, I would call that function as
fit_ellipse, in_1, in_2, out_a, out_b

no one would ever be able to debug it. :)

James wrote:
> I am writing a function that fits an ellipse to a 2*N array of
> points.  There are three values to return: the center, semi-major
> axis, and semi-minor axis.  This is a simple program, but it brings up
> a more general question: what is the preferred IDL way to return
> multiple values from a function?
> 
> Currently, my program returns a structure containing the elements
> {center, major, minor}.  However, a lot of built-in IDL routines take
> named variable inputs that are set to the appropriate value on output
> - so instead of something like:
> 
>   ellipse_struct = fit_ellipse(points)
> 
> I would have:
> 
>   fit_ellipse, points, center, major, minor
> 
> I'm not sure which is better.  C programming has taught me to
> appreciate structures, but I'd like to code in the conventions of the
> language.  Which would you prefer, and why?

Structure.

Why? Because it produces self-documenting code.

Similar to what R.G.Stockwell said,

  ellipse.center

doen't require a comment describing what it is. However, a standalone variable

  center

probably does. What is it the centre of? An ellipse? Circle? Generic ROI?

"Encapsulation" may be a bit of an OO buzzword, but even for procedural languages with structures it's an easy way to
make code more readable and simple to maintain. That may not be an issue for a person or two writing code, but in a
project where there are many people contributing (and in different timezones) it can be extremely helpful.

And since IDL went OO, I think some of the conventional idioms can be tossed - particular those that are purely for
procedural languages.

FWIW, I'm dealing with the same issue in Fortran. Ever since it went OO with the Fortran2003 standard, I'm writing all
new code with an OO bent. Makes home-grown "toolboxes" much easier to reuse.

cheers,

paulv

p.s. And always always use Mike Galloy's unit testing framework too: http://mgunit.idldev.com/  :o)

On Feb 14, 7:03=A0am, Paul van Delst <paul.vande...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> James wrote:
> > I am writing a function that fits an ellipse to a 2*N array of
> > points. =A0There are three values to return: the center, semi-major
> > axis, and semi-minor axis. =A0This is a simple program, but it brings u=
p
> > a more general question: what is the preferred IDL way to return
> > multiple values from a function?
>
> > Currently, my program returns a structure containing the elements
> > {center, major, minor}. =A0However, a lot of built-in IDL routines take
> > named variable inputs that are set to the appropriate value on output
> > - so instead of something like:
>
> > =A0 ellipse_struct =3D fit_ellipse(points)
>
> > I would have:
>
> > =A0 fit_ellipse, points, center, major, minor
>
> > I'm not sure which is better. =A0C programming has taught me to
> > appreciate structures, but I'd like to code in the conventions of the
> > language. =A0Which would you prefer, and why?
>
> Structure.
>
> Why? Because it produces self-documenting code.
>
> Similar to what R.G.Stockwell said,
>
> =A0 ellipse.center
>
> doen't require a comment describing what it is. However, a standalone var=
iable
>
> =A0 center
>
> probably does. What is it the centre of? An ellipse? Circle? Generic ROI?
>
> "Encapsulation" may be a bit of an OO buzzword, but even for procedural l=
anguages with structures it's an easy way to
> make code more readable and simple to maintain. That may not be an issue =
for a person or two writing code, but in a
> project where there are many people contributing (and in different timezo=
nes) it can be extremely helpful.
>
> And since IDL went OO, I think some of the conventional idioms can be tos=
sed - particular those that are purely for
> procedural languages.
>
> FWIW, I'm dealing with the same issue in Fortran. Ever since it went OO w=
ith the Fortran2003 standard, I'm writing all
> new code with an OO bent. Makes home-grown "toolboxes" much easier to reu=
se.
>
> cheers,
>
> paulv
>
> p.s. And always always use Mike Galloy's unit testing framework too:http:=
//mgunit.idldev.com/=A0:o)

Thanks for the input, everyone.  I am glad to see support for a
structure, since that was my original preference.  I like structures
and objects - even in an old-school language like IDL, I always find
my programs make more sense if I use them when possible.

The new OO syntax in 8.0 was a big improvement for me; along with the
hash table and list, this update has made IDL considerably more
pleasant.