comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: Invalid indices?

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

Re: Invalid indices? [message #68415 is a reply to message #68414]

Tue, 27 October 2009 11:00

David Fanning
Messages: 11724
Registered: August 2001

Senior Member

Y.T. writes:

> So I'm kinda living under a rock:
> IDL Version 6.3, Microsoft Windows (Win32 x86 m32)
>
> so I'm curious whether this is intended/expected behaviour or a bug or
> what (and whether it has change in recent years):
>
> IDL> t = lindgen(7)
> IDL> print,t
> 0 1 2 3 4
> 5 6
>
> IDL> n=5*indgen(5)
> IDL> print,n
> 0 5 10 15 20
>
> IDL> t[n] = 100
> IDL> print,t
> 100 1 2 3 4
> 100 100
>
> So element number 0 got set to 100 (OK), element number 5 got set to
> 100 and ... element number 6 also got set to 100?
>
> Why is that? I understand that I'm specifying elements "out of
> range" (number 10 and 15 etc) - is that the reason? Is this
> documented? It took me by surprise...

The explanation (I believe!) can be found in this article:

http://www.dfanning.com/code_tips/lhsvsrhs.html

The situation is known. And, yes, it surprises a LOT of people. :-)

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: Invalid indices? By: Michael Galloy on Wed, 28 October 2009 19:55
		Re: Invalid indices? By: Brian Larsen on Wed, 28 October 2009 16:02
		Re: Invalid indices? By: Michael Galloy on Tue, 27 October 2009 11:48
		Re: Invalid indices? By: David Fanning on Tue, 27 October 2009 11:27
		Re: Invalid indices? By: Foldy Lajos on Tue, 27 October 2009 11:02
		Re: Invalid indices? By: David Fanning on Tue, 27 October 2009 11:00

Previous Topic:	Re: What is the problem ?
Next Topic:	Fractal in IDL!

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 20:14:21 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00416 seconds