If you feel the urge to use an iterator in PDL, quite often that is a sign you could instead use "array programming" type constructs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming), which lets all the processing be done inside the fast C loops, rather than going backwards and forwards between Perl and PDL. | [reply] |
Errr..... there IS a 'list' function $u->list acts the same as $u->dog except list breaks the piddle up into individual elements while dog breaks it up into N-1-dimensional slices. In this particular case, where $u is one-dimensional, $u->list is identical to $u->dog | [reply] |
- dog returns a list of PDL slices, as Dima says, so a 2,3,4 ndarray dog-ed would return 4 ndarrays each dimensioned 2,3 (and as they're "slices", updates to them would be reflected in the original ndarray)
- list returns the ndarray flattened (so the whole thing in a single flat list) as Perl scalars, so a 2,3,4 would be a list of 24 Perl scalars
- unpdl (as of 2.006 from 2013, as provided by the mighty Joel Berger), which returns the ndarray as an array-ref with the same (possibly nested) structure as the input ndarray.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |