comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Re: SIZE() vs. N

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS()

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() [message #67322 is a reply to message #67321]

Thu, 16 July 2009 13:11

David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001

Senior Member

wlandsman writes:

> Immediately after posting I realized that the answer to the above
> question is "yes". In the following code using ASSOC(), N_Elements(a)
> equals 1, but size(a,/N_elements) equals 2. --Wayne
>
>
> b =3D {a:indgen(10),b:fltarr(100)}
> openw,lun,'test.dat',/get_lun
> writeu,lun,replicate(b,12)
> close,lun
>
> openr,lun,'test.dat'
> c =3D replicate(b,2)
> a =3D assoc(lun,c)
> print,size(a,/n_elements)
> print,N_elements(a)

By the way, since the Prize Chairman is leaving in about
half an hour for a little mid-summer beach action in
the Caribbean with his new Latin lover (a fox to hear
him tell it), he has decided to award this month's
most obscure post prize to Wayne. Tough competition
this month though, in the form of Scope_VarFetch
and Execute as suggestions to the poor guy who wanted
to know what an array was.

Cheers,

David
--
David Fanning, Ph.D.
Coyote's Guide to IDL Programming (www.dfanning.com)
Sepore ma de ni thui. ("Perhaps thou speakest truth.")

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() By: Craig Markwardt on Sat, 18 July 2009 02:40
		Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() By: wlandsman on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:25
		Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() By: David Fanning on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:11
		Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() By: David Fanning on Thu, 16 July 2009 13:04
		Re: SIZE() vs. N_ELEMENTS() By: wlandsman on Thu, 16 July 2009 12:59

Previous Topic:	Best form factor for a NetCDF package of a dataset
Next Topic:	Re: Linear fit with user defined weights

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sat Oct 11 00:31:17 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.87965 seconds