[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: User selectable lower array bound?

"Pavel A. Romashkin" wrote:
> Craig Markwardt wrote:
> >
> > Well, as grumpy as I have been in the past about IDL wishes, this is
> > one thing I do not want to have in IDL now!
> I am with you Craig. Besides, for the purists of array indexing, I think
> it is unfair to dasignate a *lower* array bounds. We don't designate the
> *upper* one.

In the context of initially declaring an array in IDL, sure you do:

x = fltarr(10)

declares the upper bound as 9. We also designate a lower bound: 0. The difference between
the two is that I can change the former.

> To be exact, we need a zero point fixed


> and the ability to
> extend an array in both directions. This way, I can add data in both
> positive and negative directions.

Why would this functionality be any different to what exists now? And, to me at least,
allowing -ve indices would make this sort of data manipulation easier to understand, i.e.
extend array in -ve direction => negative indices.


> P.S. I think David needs not worry about scientists learning new useful
> techniques :-(

I agree. :o\

Paul van Delst           A little learning is a dangerous thing;
CIMSS @ NOAA/NCEP        Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
Ph: (301)763-8000 x7274  There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
Fax:(301)763-8545        And drinking largely sobers us again.
                                         Alexander Pope.