## pyx-devel — PyX development

You can subscribe to this list here.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Jan Feb (13) Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar (2) Apr May (5) Jun (15) Jul (4) Aug (4) Sep (4) Oct (41) Nov (3) Dec (19) Jan (7) Feb (1) Mar (6) Apr (13) May (26) Jun (6) Jul (66) Aug (13) Sep Oct (21) Nov (12) Dec (24) Jan (7) Feb (24) Mar (9) Apr (5) May Jun (8) Jul (5) Aug (22) Sep (58) Oct (6) Nov Dec (2) Jan (1) Feb (11) Mar (12) Apr (8) May (12) Jun (30) Jul (6) Aug (2) Sep (6) Oct (1) Nov (1) Dec (1) Jan Feb Mar (1) Apr (2) May Jun Jul (8) Aug (3) Sep Oct (1) Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar (21) Apr (6) May (12) Jun (13) Jul Aug Sep (5) Oct Nov (4) Dec Jan (2) Feb Mar Apr May Jun (6) Jul (4) Aug Sep (1) Oct Nov Dec (3) Jan Feb Mar Apr (7) May (26) Jun (1) Jul (40) Aug Sep Oct (15) Nov Dec (2) Jan Feb (14) Mar Apr May (24) Jun Jul Aug (2) Sep Oct (9) Nov (3) Dec (2) Jan (12) Feb (8) Mar Apr May (3) Jun Jul (9) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (1) Jan (4) Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan (2) Feb Mar Apr (1) May Jun (4) Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov (2) Dec (6) Jan (4) Feb (10) Mar (4) Apr (3) May Jun Jul Aug (3) Sep (4) Oct (2) Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May (4) Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
S M T W T F S
1
(2)
2
(2)
3
(4)
4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
(1)
28

29

30
(1)
31
(3)

Showing 2 results of 2

 Re: [PyX-devel] Re: [PyX-checkins] pyx/test/experimental solve.py,1.2,1.3 From: Andre Wobst - 2004-08-02 08:59:17 Attachments: quadrilateral.py ```Hi, On 02.08.04, Andre Wobst wrote: > some fancy examples would be great as well ... Something like the enclosed one, which looks pretty well, but unfortunately it does use the solver to calculate the crossing point between two lines only ... André PS: Do not forget to fetch the latest version of solve.py before trying the example since I broke some multiplication logic due to the vector*matrix multiplication yesterday and the linear equation solver used an integer matrix by accident. -- by _ _ _ Dr. André Wobst / \ \ / ) wobsta@..., http://www.wobsta.de/ / _ \ \/\/ / PyX - High quality PostScript figures with Python & TeX (_/ \_)_/\_/ visit http://pyx.sourceforge.net/ ```
 Re: [PyX-devel] Re: [PyX-checkins] pyx/test/experimental solve.py,1.2,1.3 From: Andre Wobst - 2004-08-02 05:47:09 ```Hi, On 01.08.04, Magnus Lie Hetland wrote: > > One structually missing thing is the "redefinition" of an equation, > > but this should not be hard to add it to the solver. > > No -- and in a pinch, you could basically just build a new solver with > one equation redefined. I thought about that as well before, but there seems to be a problem: If you create several solver instances (which is trivial, of course), you can't store the solver results in the scalars itself. You would loose to know, whether a scalar is a constant or it got set by another solver (and should be overwritten?). We can find some way out of this problem, but it might be quite obscure to the user ... Beside that there are quite some other things to be discussed. Just a few which come into my mind immediately: In MetaPost you can define equations, which over-determine the problem. You can do so by none-scalar equations and I think it's a bad idea to do so, but this might be discussed with people, who are used to the MetaPost equation solver. I'm not sure whether this is a often used feature and whether we should spend time on that at all. Currently the integration in PyX is not thought about. We have at least to think about the interfaces to the path stuff, the transformations and the PyX lengths. And we might think about the basic functionality. Currently I've tried to implement some school-like vector algebra. For example we do have vectors and we can do scalar products between vectors. Multiplying a vector by another vector will lead to a scalar product. One could also think about introducing dual vectors, so that multiplying a dual vector by a vector will be a scalar product, but multiplying a vector by a dual vector will be a dyadic product and result in a matrix. While there would be *some* people how would like that (I think, I would join that portion), it might be inappropriate to our goals using the system for geometrical operations. So, yes, I think we should stick on what we already have (up to introducing a full transformation), but I'm not totally sure. Beside that we'll need to complete the tests and some fancy examples would be great as well ... André -- by _ _ _ Dr. André Wobst / \ \ / ) wobsta@..., http://www.wobsta.de/ / _ \ \/\/ / PyX - High quality PostScript figures with Python & TeX (_/ \_)_/\_/ visit http://pyx.sourceforge.net/ ```

Showing 2 results of 2