I would have to check, since I haven't used the complex code in donkey's years. The current git should give the same answer as glue. The constructor itself should do the Right thing - e.g. pdl(pdl(1),pdl(2*i)) - since it zero-pads short elements in its arg list.
(Mobile) On Mar 9, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Luis Mochan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for the report -- fixed in git. > Thanks for fixing it so promptly! > > I haven't tried the new git version, but I found a related bug and a > surprise: > pdl> use PDL::Complex > pdl> p cat(pdl(1),pdl(2*i)) > [1 2] > I guess this is the same bug as before. > pdl> p cat(pdl(2*i), pdl(1)) > [0 +2i 1 +1i] > This may be suprising, as it might be expected that the real number > pdl(1) gets complexified to 1+0*i, but actually, the threading machine adds a > dummy dimension that converts pdl(1) to the vector [1,1] which is > interpreted as 1+1i. The relation between complex numbers and size 2 > vectors has to be handled with care. What would the result of > cat(pdl(1),pdl(2*i)) using the current git version? [1+1i,0+2i] or > [1+0i,0,2i]? > > Best regards, > Luis > > _______________________________________________ > Perldl mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl > _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
