| Re: inconsistence in 5.4 -> 6.0 [message #36569] |
Wed, 08 October 2003 02:16  |
![marc schellens[1] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "marc schellens[1] is currently offline")
marc schellens[1]
Messages: 183
Registered: January 2000
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> try:
>>
>> in 5.4:
>>
>> IDL> cc=complex(0,1)
>> IDL> if cc then print,'true' else print,'false'
>> false
>>
>>
>> in 6.0:
>>
>> IDL> cc=complex(0,1)
>> IDL> if cc then print,'true' else print,'false'
>> true
>>
>> potentially dangerous, isn't it?
>
>
> Well, I don't know about "dangerous", but
> it certainly is inconsistent with the
> on-line help definition of "true" for
> complex variables. What did the good folks
> at RSI say about this when you reported it? :-)
Didn't report it yet.
But I think the good folks at RSI reading the newsgroup anyway.
marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: inconsistence in 5.4 -> 6.0 [message #36591 is a reply to message #36570] |
Tue, 07 October 2003 10:50  |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Marc Schellens writes:
> try:
>
> in 5.4:
>
> IDL> cc=complex(0,1)
> IDL> if cc then print,'true' else print,'false'
> false
>
>
> in 6.0:
>
> IDL> cc=complex(0,1)
> IDL> if cc then print,'true' else print,'false'
> true
>
> potentially dangerous, isn't it?
Well, I don't know about "dangerous", but
it certainly is inconsistent with the
on-line help definition of "true" for
complex variables. What did the good folks
at RSI say about this when you reported it? :-)
Cheers,
David
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Phone: 970-221-0438, E-mail: david@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: inconsistence in 5.4 -> 6.0 [message #36646 is a reply to message #36570] |
Thu, 09 October 2003 15:12 |
Craig Markwardt
Messages: 1869
Registered: November 1996
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Marc Schellens <m_schellens@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Seriously, you don't use IDL for complex numbers do you?
>
> No.
> I was just playing with 6.0
>
> But why are you so sure about this?
> I always thought that other people well use complex numbers.
> Are there some reasons why nobody should use IDL with complex numbers?
> Anybody out there using complex numbers in IDL?
I use them all the time, in Fourier-type applications (including FFT).
I've never had a problem.
Craig
--
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: craigmnet@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------
|
|
|
|
| Re: inconsistence in 5.4 -> 6.0 [message #36666 is a reply to message #36569] |
Thu, 09 October 2003 05:18 |
David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Marc Schellens writes:
> Didn't report it yet.
> But I think the good folks at RSI reading the newsgroup anyway.
I suspect they do, but that is NOT the same as
an official report that gets the problem into
their formal tracking system. As my mama told
me, things that are written down get DONE! :-)
Cheers,
David
--
David W. Fanning, Ph.D.
Fanning Software Consulting, Inc.
Phone: 970-221-0438, E-mail: david@dfanning.com
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming: http://www.dfanning.com/
Toll-Free IDL Book Orders: 1-888-461-0155
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
