Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

Seems I can’t help myself! I have now found the offending line in rcols() and can now reproduce this without rcols. That should at least make it easier to track down. use PDL; $x = sequence(100)+1; # This works $x = $x->mv(-1,0)->slice("0:3"); print $x, "\n"; $x *= 100; print $x, "\n";

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

OK here is some deeper diving in to the problem use PDL; $x = rcols 'tmp.dat'; # This does causes the error #$x = sequence(4)+1; # This works print $x, "\n"; $x *= 100; print $x, "\n"; $y=::_clump_int($x,-1); print $y, "\n"; # prints [0 0 0 0] ; looks like the error is happening in the

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

Ah! I believe the difference between medover and median is a clump(-1) to collapse the dimensions There does it indeed to be something wrong with clump too, so that is probably the underlying cause pdl> $x = rcols 'tmp.dat'

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - PDL::NiceSlice issue

I found some time back problems with NiceSlice. Actually, with Filter::Simple (used by default by NiceSlice, though it can use other options, controlled with environment variables). I vaguely recall that two slashes, as in two divisions consecutive, confuse it completely, as they seem as regular

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

I was able to reproduce it, and I don't understand it. Median, min, max fail even after printing the updated $x, as if there were to different variables $x. On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 11:26:56AM +1100, Karl Glazebrook via pdl-general wrote: > Hi all, > > This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

I noticed that medover and maxover do work as expected in this case. On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 11:26:56AM +1100, Karl Glazebrook via pdl-general wrote: > Hi all, > > This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025 to v.2.084 (yes, I know that is > lame) > > I noticed a few things when running one of

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

Further to this, I looked through the rcols() diff. I could find no significant change in the code that smelled like it could cause this. Here is a visual diff: https://www.diffchecker.com/w2FX8O61/ . (v2.025, v2.084) I am afraid it must be a subtle bug

Re: [Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - PDL::NiceSlice issue

> On 7 Jan 2024, at 11:55 am, Karl Glazebrook via pdl-general > wrote: > > (The mismatch of line numbers seems to be related to the use of hereto text > earlier in the code, the debugger shows different line numbers) > PS just to prove this point given the line numbers issue: syntax

[Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - PDL::NiceSlice issue

Hi all, This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025 to v.2.084 (yes, I know that is lame) I noticed a few things when running one of my complicated codes, I will start seperate email threads This last one - I had PDL::NiceSlice failing randomly halfway through a long module? So the module

[Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - scalars vs piddles

Hi all, This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025 to v.2.084 (yes, I know that is lame) I noticed a few things when running one of my complicated codes, I will start seperate email threads Next I think this one is a design choice change I missed. - Functions like median() max() etc now

[Pdl-general] Changes I noted PDL2.025 -> PDL2.084 - rcols issue

Hi all, This dinosaur just upgraded from PDL v2.025 to v.2.084 (yes, I know that is lame) I noticed a few things when running one of my complicated codes, I will start seperate email threads First there seems to be a serious rcols bug: e.g. create a file # tmp.dat 1 2 3 4 Loaded PDL