> is it possible to improve the present PDL distribution, like splitting the > "non-core“ modules out
“There’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza” :-) The number one reason you haven’t heard about PDLA is because it never really got properly publicised, and therefore maybe used. The slightly-different namespace allows for experimentation, while “PDL” gets to stay exactly as-is – a known quantity. Once I bring PDLA up to date (see separate posting), it should be as good as PDL but with quicker installs. Of course you’re welcome to give early feedback now! Best regards, Ed From: Stephan Loyd<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:46 PM To: Ed .<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pdl-general] Fw: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL? I use a little bit PDL at home, although much more Python and R at work. Regarding this PDLA vs PDL thing, is it possible to improve the present PDL distribution, like splitting the "non-core“ modules out? I think people knows more PDL than PDLA, like I never heard of PDLA before. It would be best if you can keep the namespace of "PDL", maybe bump it to V3 if there be breaking changes? Regards, Stephan On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:31 AM Ed . <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear pdl-general list, (had to send again, after subscribing - whoops) Luis has quite correctly reminded me of this list. I have very recently revived the question of "whither PDL", and am very interested to get the thoughts of the wider community. The relevant posting is: https://sourceforge.net/p/pdl/mailman/message/36638395/ - some explanation of detail on this crazy "PDLA" thing (I've checked, and PDLA does in fact still call its executable "pdl" - as I've said on the thread, that's a bug and I will fix it) Basically, the question is: do you, dear scientist/PDL user, still use PDL? Would the increased reproducibility that is easily within reach add value? (I emphasise reproducibility because a quick scan of the -general list showed people wanting to patch PDL "proper", which means anyone trying to reproduce their results would need to also use the patched version, which is a disaster in my opinion) Best regards, Ed -----Original Message----- From: Luis Mochan Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2019 4:00 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] Whither PDL? On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 12:45:54AM -0400, Terry Gaetz wrote: > I have been using PDL for more than a decade (or is it two?). Generally, > mere users don't pipe up on pdl-devel... Maybe more PDL users may be found on pdl-general -- o W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*) Instituto de Ciencias Físicas, UNAM | fax:(52)(777)317-5388 `>/ /\ Apdo. Postal 48-3, 62251 | (*)/\/ \ Cuernavaca, Morelos, México | [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> /\_/\__/ GPG: 791EB9EB, C949 3F81 6D9B 1191 9A16 C2DF 5F0A C52B 791E B9EB _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel _______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
_______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
