On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Matthew Kenworthy <[email protected]> wrote: > > So do we all - all I'm doing is volunteering to keep the Mac version updated.
PDL development always feels very ad-hoc. In this instance, we have inconsistent distributions for different platforms with different names and different features. A while ago I mention modules (e.g. PDL::Func, and all the PGPLOT modules). I guess it has a lot to do with it being such a small group, but this sort of thing always makes e a bit uneasy. I like software that is well planned and designed. >> * It's meaning is more clear to someone who is not already a PDL user. > > No, SciPDL is better. It's PDL, not a generalized Science package for > Perl. To me the "Sci" implies that it is a generalized science package. If that's not what you want from it, then don't call it SciPDL either. Call it "PDL Pro", "PDL++", "PDL Bundle", "PDL-That-Works" or whatever. Something that conveys that it is basically PDL with something extra (if that's want you want your distribution to be). Daniel. -- Intolerant people should be shot. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
