Hi Ed,
> ...However, are you seeing a use for it that adds anything to simply using
> i2C from PDL::Complex?
No.
Best regards,
Luis
--
o
W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*)
Instituto de
ge.net<mailto:pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>;
perldl<mailto:pdl-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] PDL 2.027 released
Hello,
I'm intrigued by ci. What is the reason for its behavior?
I found that ci was defined through pp_def with one output argument.
Thus, ci+$x is int
Hello,
I'm intrigued by ci. What is the reason for its behavior?
I found that ci was defined through pp_def with one output argument.
Thus, ci+$x is interpreted as ci(+$x) which actually assigns
complex i to each element of $x if $x is a complex pdl. If $x is real,
then it assigns 0 (I guess it
to:moc...@icf.unam.mx>
Sent: 07 March 2021 15:10
To: pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>;
perldl<mailto:pdl-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] PDL 2.027 released
Hi Ed,
> The problem you identified is due to a logic error
Hi Ed,
> The problem you identified is due to a logic error in the bifuncs in P::Ops –
> they weren’t handling complex inputs correctly because the code to do so was
> behind a check for unsigned-handling. Now that’s corrected, and there’s a
> test to guard against regressions. As soon as
-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>;
perldl<mailto:pdl-gene...@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Pdl-devel] PDL 2.027 released
Well, so far, I have found that ** invokes the function PDL::power
which seems not to work with the new complex types. I don't know the
Well, so far, I have found that ** invokes the function PDL::power
which seems not to work with the new complex types. I don't know the
reason for having both a 'pow' and a 'power' function.
On the other hand, would it be feasible to enable data flow back to
the real and imaginary parts of a new
And pow also works. So it seems the problem is related to the
translation from the binary operator version '**'.
pdl> p +(1+ci)->ipow(2)
0+2i
pdl> p +(1+ci)->pow(2)
1.2246467991473532e-16+2i
pdl> p +(1+ci)**2
1+0i
pdl>
On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 05:03:49PM -0600, Luis Mochan wrote:
> > So powers
> So powers of complex numbers are not working. I haven't looked yet at
> the P::Ops code. I'll try later.
ipow does work though.
--
o
W. Luis Mochán, | tel:(52)(777)329-1734 /<(*)
Instituto de Ciencias
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 07:41:18PM +, Ed . wrote:
> Dear PDL folks,
> I have just uploaded PDL 2.027. Changes from 2.026:
Great!
I want to start using the new complex code, mostly to avoid the errors
due to bad uses of the extra (real-imag) dimension.
> - native support for complex
Dear PDL folks,
I have just uploaded PDL 2.027. Changes from 2.026:
- native support for complex numbers - thanks Ingo Schmid
- define and use C macros in PP for shorter, more comprehensible XS
Note that the native complex numbers are as defined in C99, and no attempt has
(yet) been made to
11 matches
Mail list logo
