comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive

Home » Public Forums » archive » simple deconvolution

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

Re: simple deconvolution [message #75290 is a reply to message #75210]

Wed, 23 February 2011 06:53

Jeremy Bailin
Messages: 618
Registered: April 2008

Senior Member

> I braved a += operator in an e-mail the other day
> where I thought the context would make its use
> totally transparent. Total chaos. I probably won't
> do that again for another couple of years. :-)

Seriously?? I think += is much much clearer than the alternative.

-Jeremy.

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		simple deconvolution By: rogass on Tue, 22 February 2011 07:00
		Re: simple deconvolution By: rogass on Wed, 23 February 2011 12:32
		Re: simple deconvolution By: pgrigis on Wed, 23 February 2011 08:14
		Re: simple deconvolution By: penteado on Wed, 23 February 2011 07:45
		Re: simple deconvolution By: David Fanning on Wed, 23 February 2011 07:30
		Re: simple deconvolution By: Jeremy Bailin on Wed, 23 February 2011 06:53
		Re: simple deconvolution By: rogass on Tue, 22 February 2011 23:40
		Re: simple deconvolution By: James[2] on Tue, 22 February 2011 15:49
		Re: simple deconvolution By: David Fanning on Tue, 22 February 2011 15:24
		Re: simple deconvolution By: James[2] on Tue, 22 February 2011 15:15
		Re: simple deconvolution By: wlandsman on Tue, 22 February 2011 15:03
		Re: simple deconvolution By: David Fanning on Tue, 22 February 2011 09:10
		Re: simple deconvolution By: rogass on Tue, 22 February 2011 08:49
		Re: simple deconvolution By: penteado on Tue, 22 February 2011 08:35

Previous Topic:	Re: Pixelwise temporal trend, problem with REFORM
Next Topic:	IDL on win7 crashing

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Dec 03 17:28:28 PST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.93146 seconds