comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Re: IDL subroutine improvements
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: IDL subroutine improvements [message #15083] Thu, 22 April 1999 00:00 Go to previous message
<asowter is currently offline  <asowter
Messages: 5
Registered: March 1999
Junior Member
Jeez, this is a real bummer. As a commercial IDL user, I've been sold
partially on it's flexibility to upgrade. It's also a personal bummer as
I'm a regular user of the correlation and CONGRID functions.......!

Andy

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
>
>
> wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
>>
>> To all,
>>
>> This is a really small issue. I'm just wondering if anyone else has
>> submitted an improvement to an existing IDL subroutine to RSI and seen it
>> incorporated into a subsequent version of IDL? A while back I submitted
>> (what I considered to be) a significant speed enhancement to the cross
>> correlate and auto correlate functions with only minor modifications. My
>> benchmarks were showing me about a 60%+ speed improvement (which is
important
>> if your code is constantly banging on these functions, like mine was). I
had
>> to convince the rep over a couple of emails what the
advantage/improvement
>> was.
>>
>
> I was in a similar position. I found an inconsistency in CONGRID --
> which still exists today, by the way. I reported it for version 4 of
> IDL, and I convinced RSI tech support people that it truly was an
> inconsistency. Unfortunately it was never corrected.
>
> Craig
>
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: Varaibles higher on the stack
Next Topic: AGAIN: Help: Retrieve the state of radio button

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Oct 11 15:04:02 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.96144 seconds