| Re: User selectable lower array bound? [message #26167 is a reply to message #25981] |
Mon, 06 August 2001 09:47   |
Paul van Delst
Messages: 364
Registered: March 1997
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote:
>
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
>>
>> Well, as grumpy as I have been in the past about IDL wishes, this is
>> one thing I do not want to have in IDL now!
>
> I am with you Craig. Besides, for the purists of array indexing, I think
> it is unfair to dasignate a *lower* array bounds. We don't designate the
> *upper* one.
In the context of initially declaring an array in IDL, sure you do:
x = fltarr(10)
declares the upper bound as 9. We also designate a lower bound: 0. The difference between
the two is that I can change the former.
> To be exact, we need a zero point fixed
why?
> and the ability to
> extend an array in both directions. This way, I can add data in both
> positive and negative directions.
Why would this functionality be any different to what exists now? And, to me at least,
allowing -ve indices would make this sort of data manipulation easier to understand, i.e.
extend array in -ve direction => negative indices.
paulv
> P.S. I think David needs not worry about scientists learning new useful
> techniques :-(
I agree. :o\
--
Paul van Delst A little learning is a dangerous thing;
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7274 There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
Fax:(301)763-8545 And drinking largely sobers us again.
Alexander Pope.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
