| Re: IDL subroutine improvements [message #15083] |
Thu, 22 April 1999 00:00 |
<asowter
Messages: 5
Registered: March 1999
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Jeez, this is a real bummer. As a commercial IDL user, I've been sold
partially on it's flexibility to upgrade. It's also a personal bummer as
I'm a regular user of the correlation and CONGRID functions.......!
Andy
Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
>
>
> wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
>>
>> To all,
>>
>> This is a really small issue. I'm just wondering if anyone else has
>> submitted an improvement to an existing IDL subroutine to RSI and seen it
>> incorporated into a subsequent version of IDL? A while back I submitted
>> (what I considered to be) a significant speed enhancement to the cross
>> correlate and auto correlate functions with only minor modifications. My
>> benchmarks were showing me about a 60%+ speed improvement (which is
important
>> if your code is constantly banging on these functions, like mine was). I
had
>> to convince the rep over a couple of emails what the
advantage/improvement
>> was.
>>
>
> I was in a similar position. I found an inconsistency in CONGRID --
> which still exists today, by the way. I reported it for version 4 of
> IDL, and I convinced RSI tech support people that it truly was an
> inconsistency. Unfortunately it was never corrected.
>
> Craig
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL subroutine improvements [message #15098 is a reply to message #15083] |
Wed, 21 April 1999 00:00  |
Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
>
> To all,
>
> This is a really small issue. I'm just wondering if anyone else has
> submitted an improvement to an existing IDL subroutine to RSI and seen it
> incorporated into a subsequent version of IDL? A while back I submitted
> (what I considered to be) a significant speed enhancement to the cross
> correlate and auto correlate functions with only minor modifications. My
> benchmarks were showing me about a 60%+ speed improvement (which is important
> if your code is constantly banging on these functions, like mine was). I had
> to convince the rep over a couple of emails what the advantage/improvement
> was.
>
I was in a similar position. I found an inconsistency in CONGRID --
which still exists today, by the way. I reported it for version 4 of
IDL, and I convinced RSI tech support people that it truly was an
inconsistency. Unfortunately it was never corrected.
Craig
P.S. My corrected version is CMCONGRID, and is available at
http://astrog.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/idl.html The operative
keyword is HALF_HALF.
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@astrog.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: IDL subroutine improvements [message #15101 is a reply to message #15098] |
Wed, 21 April 1999 00:00 |
rlkling
Messages: 14
Registered: April 1999
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In article <7fkld2$1jo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote:
> Anyway, was just wondering. BTW, if anyone wants these two functions, just
> drop me a line. Maybe DF or RK would consider another subsection for their
> sites - user-optimized IDL routines (same functionality).
>
> -Bill B.
I had not thought of doing something like that, but I like the idea. I know
that I have modified a lot of the IDL routines for my own use (especially the
compound widgets). As always, the biggest pain will be the documentation. I
will add it to the list of things to do!
-Ronn
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
