Hi Karl, Good to hear from you! And I hope that apart from the issues you’ve raised, that your experience with the new PDL is good. Have a look at the updated demo system, including the updated 3D demos, and see if you can tell the pthreading is done automatically on large-enough data by detecting the number of cores available by default.
The change in the aggregate functions was introduced in 2.056. I would now say I didn’t take sufficient account of backwards compatibility on that one. Sorry for the inconvenience. My reasoning was in how shocked I was that those functions were returning Perl scalars. By the way, you (of all people!) are welcome to call these data objects what you like, but another change made (this time in 2.040) was to rename “piddles” (which always struck me as faintly juvenile, and I felt would undermine PDL’s credibility for no good reason) to “ndarrays”, which is a widely-used term. The “piddle” function was retained for back-compatibility. Best regards, Ed From: Karl Glazebrook via pdl-general<mailto:pdl-general@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: 07 January 2024 00:29 To: perldl<mailto:pdl-general@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - scalars vs piddles Hi all, This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025 to v.2.084 (yes, I know that is lame) I noticed a few things when running one of my complicated codes, I will start seperate email threads Next I think this one is a design choice change I missed. - Functions like median() max() etc now return a 0D piddle and no longer a scalar. This broke some gnarly code I had. I expect this change was sensible, I am just curious as the reasons and when it happened? best Karl _______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list pdl-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
_______________________________________________ pdl-general mailing list pdl-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-general
