Hi Luis,
Thanks for the great problem-finding and -tracking!
The difference between “pow” and “power” is that the latter is more
sophisticated, and PDL-ish, and allows for mutations (such as with overloaded
operators). The former is just the PDL-ised version of the “-lm” function. For
sure, we
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 of
> 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 F
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 num
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 int
