Hi Hugh
We all have reasons why we can't. I don't think Craig was singling you
out in particular, just making a comment that any serious new
developments in PDL require fresh new developers with time and energy.
It may in fact be impossible, for the reasons you state and maybe the
gurus will gradually make incremental improvements. I don't think one
can expect the existing gurus to have the time to make big changes
just because they have the expertise and are thought to be responsible
for PDL.
One thing that is easy is to at least patch the docs. Not enough of us
do this.
Karl
On 19/09/2008, at 7:52 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>>
>
> As to (1):
>
> Short form:
> I'm sorry, that is not going to happen, for various sensible
> reasons.
>
> Long form:
>
> "Not that hard": no, just requiring decent familiarity with the
> code base which takes time to pick up. Why don't programmers
> like maintenance programming? Because understanding other
> people's code is more difficult that writing your own. I'm
> clearly not in a position to do anything useful if I'm running
> into problems like this.
>
> It's not like I don't contribute to projects I use, I have
> recently sent off a number of patches to various Ruby projects,
> for example, and in the past to various others I could name.
> These days I'm more fluent in Ruby than Perl, so my contributions
> wold probably be less useful anyway. And I have other things
> that I'm trying to get done so don't have enough time. There are
> plenty of valid reasons for not being a contributor to any given
> project, and I'm afraid I can't contribute to everything. So
> this line of reasoning is beginning to wear pretty thin. Adding
> more programmers to a project has been shown to slow it down in
> enough cases for it to be significant [Brooks, "The Mythical Man
> Month"], so sometimes diving in can be a hindrance, especially
> with code which doesn't fit the existing structures, due to
> insufficient familiarity with the code base.
>
> Thank you,
> Hugh
>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 19, 2008, at 5:17 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using Perldl 2.4.3 under cygwin.
>>>
>>> perldl> $z = zeroes(3,3)
>>>
>>> perldl> $cz = &PDL::Complex::r2C($z);
>>>
>>> perldl> print $cz
>>>
>>> [
>>> [0+0i 0+0i 0+0i]
>>> [0+0i 0+0i 0+0i]
>>> [0+0i 0+0i 0+0i]
>>> ]
>>>
>>> Fair enough, a 3 by 3 array of complex. Well, maybe.
>>> perldl> print ref($cz)
>>> PDL::Complex
>>>
>>> So it knows it holds complex numbers.
>>>
>>> perldl> print $cz->at(1,1)
>>> Invalid position at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10/i686-cygwin/PDL
>>> /Core.pm line 2377.
>>>
>>> So what does it think the dimensions are?
>>>
>>> perldl> print $cz->dims()
>>> 2 3 3
>>> perldl>
>>>
>>> Now, complex numbers are supposed to interact correctly with
>>> "normal"
>>> reals, but I can't access elements of arrays of Complex and arrays
>>> of reals in the same way in the code, so I need two paths through my
>>> code.
>>>
>>> Is there something like this (rough sketch) already?:
>>>
>>> package PDL::Complex;
>>>
>>> sub at {
>>> my $self = shift;
>>> my $x = shift;
>>> my $y = shift;
>>>
>>> return &PDL::at($self,0,$x,$y) + &PDL::at($self,1,$x,$y) * i;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Is there a reason I would not want to add that to my code, if not?
>>> Alternatively, why is my expectation on this wrong? What should I
>>> be looking for, to pluck a complex value from a 2D array of numbers,
>>> in a complx/real agnostic way?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Hugh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Perldl mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perldl mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
