Re: [pure-lang-users] case

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:51 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> Eddie Rucker wrote:
> > Actually the thingy I sent was bad. (m, setter) should have been (m,
> > set) like in the following. Since set is local to matrix and we have
> > lexical scoping, I see no problem.
> 
> Yes, I missed that. But you could still simplify your definition, by 
> just making gsl_matrix_set promote integer arguments to double. I don't 
> see why you need that type argument to the setter function at all.
> 
> Albert
> 

Just have double and complex entries?

e.r.