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

Re: User selectable lower array bound?

JD Smith <jdsmith@astro.cornell.edu> writes:
> The most annoying thing about IDL arrays to me is the need always to
> test whether they exist or not when concatenating onto them.  The idea
> of extending arrays in both directions would be neatly summed up by
> allowing:
> a=[b,a] & a=[a,b] even if a doesn't (yet) exist.  
> Either that, or IDL needs a list type which allows such operations. 
> Wasn't that just me ranting about special case functionality leading to
> inconsistency?

Hmmm, agreed.  I think WMC's and my proposal was for a "null" data
type which was essentially an empty list.


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