Re: IDL subroutine improvements

[Craig Markwardt <craigmnet(at)astrog.physics.wisc.edu>]

wbiagiot@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
> 
> To all,
> 
> This is a really small issue.  I'm just wondering if anyone else has
> submitted an improvement to an existing IDL subroutine to RSI and seen it
> incorporated into a subsequent version of IDL?	A while back I submitted
> (what I considered to be) a significant speed enhancement to the cross
> correlate and auto correlate functions with only minor modifications.  My
> benchmarks were showing me about a 60%+ speed improvement (which is important
> if your code is constantly banging on these functions, like mine was).	I had
> to convince the rep over a couple of emails what the advantage/improvement
> was.
> 

I was in a similar position.  I found an inconsistency in CONGRID --
which still exists today, by the way.  I reported it for version 4 of
IDL, and I convinced RSI tech support people that it truly was an
inconsistency.  Unfortunately it was never corrected.

Craig

P.S.  My corrected version is CMCONGRID, and is available at
http://astrog.physics.wisc.edu/~craigm/idl/idl.html The operative
keyword is HALF_HALF.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D.         EMAIL: craigmnet@astrog.physics.wisc.edu
Astrophysics, IDL, Finance, Derivatives | Remove "net" for better response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------