pure-lang-users

[pure-lang-users] row and col

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

Hi Albert,

row x::matrix i::int

Is this backwards? Shouldn't it be 'row i::int x::matrix' so that
row can be used in map, filter, and friends.

 > map (row 0) [m1, m2, m3];

e.r.

Re: [pure-lang-users] row and col

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Eddie Rucker wrote:
> row x::matrix i::int
> 
> Is this backwards? Shouldn't it be 'row i::int x::matrix' so that
> row can be used in map, filter, and friends.
> 
>  > map (row 0) [m1, m2, m3];

No, I prefer it the other way round, e.g.

rows x = map (row x) (0..n-1) when n,_ = dim x end;

(Well, that's already in the prelude, but you get the idea...)

And note that you can also write map (flip row 0) [m1, m2, m3] to get
what you want.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag

Re: [pure-lang-users] row and col

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

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 03:22 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:

> No, I prefer it the other way round, e.g.
> 
> rows x = map (row x) (0..n-1) when n,_ = dim x end;
> 
> (Well, that's already in the prelude, but you get the idea...)
> 
> And note that you can also write map (flip row 0) [m1, m2, m3] to get
> what you want.

The other way occurs more. OK.

e.r.