in reply to Re: Boosting workaround [Was: PDL's error or mine?]
in thread PDL's error or mine?

You are perfectly right because I had a typo in my example. It should read ->which(...) instead of ->where(...). In that case, the condition cannot be violated.

Greetings,
-jo

$gryYup$d0ylprbpriprrYpkJl2xyl~rzg??P~5lp2hyl0p$

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Boosting workaround [Was: PDL's error or mine?]
by Anonymous Monk on Feb 23, 2023 at 16:38 UTC

    OK... It was un-runnable pseudo-code anyway; and which as function expects single argument; and, as a method, should be called on a mask without other arguments, right?

    Even then, I'm confused, wouldn't you get exactly same result (i.e. $intersect) by simply and-ing ("&") the 2 masks and calling which on it? If example was just simplified for laymen to this tautology, I certainly expect no explanation, sorry to bother.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      ...wouldn't you get exactly same result (i.e. $intersect) by simply and-ing ("&") the 2 masks and calling which on it?

      Yes. Thank you!

      Greetings,
      -jo

      $gryYup$d0ylprbpriprrYpkJl2xyl~rzg??P~5lp2hyl0p$
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom