On Mar 27, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote: > > Well, since I primarily interested in N dimensional FFTs I'm capable > of getting myself in enough knots dimensionally without having to > track which slices are not actually slices, but what would be, in > an Object Oriented perspective, properties of a complex number. > Part of the point of OO interfaces was to shield us from this > indexing stuff which is so easy to get wrong. > > Maybe another interface could meet the needs of people with my kind > of expectation. Simplicity is difficult to design, and when you > have backwards compatibility and performance to think of, it is even > harder. So I don't know what is achievable with the time * energy > available. But if you bear future simplicity in mind you might be > able to shape things so that it make the job easier for the next > phase.
Hmmm... Well, adding inplace awareness will break old scripts anyway, and I've not heard any objection to that yet. So long as we're breaking old scripts, now is a good time to overhaul for simplicity based on common usage patterns. In Hugh's Republic, how would fftnd work? Cheers, Craig _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
