Chris.
You wish is my command:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2148080/SciPDL-v2.016.dmg
Perhaps delete the other versions to avoid confusion?
Karl
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 8:21 AM, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
> Yes, I think I am persuaded. Just giving the history
>
> Karl
>
>
>> On 6 Jun 2
Yes, I think I am persuaded. Just giving the history
Karl
> On 6 Jun 2016, at 1:52 AM, Chris Marshall wrote:
>
> AFAICT, we have never had more than one SciPDL per PDL release
> and the two "styles" of SciPDL have never overlapped. Is the
> change from the past implementation to the current i
AFAICT, we have never had more than one SciPDL per PDL release
and the two "styles" of SciPDL have never overlapped. Is the
change from the past implementation to the current implementation
information needed to use SciPDL? If not, we could keep it
the same, SciPDL, and also have the benefit of b
Opinions on this are welcome!
The 2 to 3 thing was because I made a big change to the style of SciPDL... (1)
including Perl itself and (2) making a draggable DMG rather than a packagemaker
package. I suppose I could just call it 'newSciPDL' and match the version
numbers
- Karl
> On 4 Jun
Am I the only one who finds it confusing that SciPDL, which is
basically a binary PDL distribution, has a different version
number? What about matching the version of the base PDL?
On 6/4/2016 00:39, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Done!
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2148080/SciPDL-v3.1.
Done!
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2148080/SciPDL-v3.1.dmg
Can someone test? I tried to script it a bit but want an independent check for
screw-ups
Karl
> On 28 May 2016, at 7:51 AM, Chris Marshall wrote:
>
> Hi Karl-
>
> Interested in updating SciPDL for the coming PDL-2.016 relea
I ought to be able to do that in the next few days.
- Karl
Sent from an iProduct
> On 28 May 2016, at 7:51 AM, Chris Marshall wrote:
>
> Hi Karl-
>
> Interested in updating SciPDL for the coming PDL-2.016 release?
> Do you have any issues with the current release candidate?
>
> Thanks,
> Chri
