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

Re: 951213: netCDF strings, BUG: in ncdump

>From: Bernhard Wagner <address@hidden>
>Organization: University of Zurich, Switzerland
>Keywords: 199512131951.AA05994 netCDF ncdump strings

Bernhard,

> Thanks for your quick reply.

A little too quick, as it turned out :-).

> unfortunately, I don't have vardata.c version 1.38 as you can see from the
> header:
> 
>  *   See netcdf/COPYRIGHT file for copying and redistribution conditions.
>  *   $Header: /upc/share/new/netcdf/src/ncdump/RCS/vardata.c,v 1.33 
> 1993/04/14 19:23:12 steve Exp $
> 
> you gave me this diff-output:
> 
> diff -r1.38 vardata.c
> 495c495
> <           Printf("\"");
> ---
> >           Printf("\", ");
> 
> Could you indicate me the diff-output for version 1.33, please ?

Sorry, I should have noticed you were using the 2.3.2pl2 release, but
instead I gave you a diff for the 2.4beta release, which is what I've been
working on lately.  Also the patch I gave you was wrong, since it also
terminated the last string in the list with a "," instead of a ";".  Here's
the correct patch (with some context) for the 2.3.2 release.  It amounts
to inserting a line that calls "lastdelim":

$ diff -c vardata.c~ vardata.c
*** vardata.c~  Wed Apr 14 13:22:36 1993
--- vardata.c   Thu Dec 14 14:04:03 1995
***************
*** 350,355 ****
--- 350,356 ----
                  break;
              }
            Printf("\"");
+           lastdelim (more, lastrow);
            annotate (vp, fsp, cor, 0);
        } else {                /* use format from C_format attribute */
            for (iel = 0; iel < len-1; iel++) {

> (I am a little confused with this version 1.38, since I thought using
>  netcdf-232pl2 was the official actual release, when ignoring patches
>  3 and 4, which are only useful when using the c++ interface.
>  The vardata.c-version Number in netcdf-232pl2 release is 1.33 not 1.38
>  Am I not using the official version ?)

You are, and it was my mistake, since many of the questions I'm getting now
deal with the 2.4-beta release instead of the 2.3.2pl2 version.  The 2.4
beta release seems to have gotten quite stable now.  I have only two more
minor bugs to fix, the porting to VMS and MSDOS to do, and a lot of
documentation to finish before declaring it a release.  If you are not
depending on the VMS or MSDOS ports, it is probably better at this point
than the 2.3.2pl2 release, in terms of having fewer bugs.  I'm hoping to
have the 2.4 release done in January.

______________________________________________________________________________

Russ Rew                                           UCAR Unidata Program
address@hidden                              http://www.unidata.ucar.edu