Re: How do I replace this "for" loop?

[Tom Holroyd]

Oops!  There was a(nother) bug in my script -- the original line 
was

        x = 2*(x>p);

but it should have been

        x = 2*x(x>p);

and the really astonishing part is, the second line is faster.
In fact (see attached graph), it shows that in this case, find is 
*never* faster than using logical indexing.  Not only that, even 
the logical indexing gets faster as the number of elements 
selected decreases!  I'm not sure why that is.

The first line involves conversion of a logical array to a double 
array, which has nothing to do with the original task.

Dr. Tom Holroyd
"A man of genius makes no mistakes. His errors are volitional and
are the portals of discovery." -- James Joyce

trade2.png
Description: PNG image