Henning Thielemann wrote: >>does it not make sense to define matrix applicaion: >> >> mapply :: Matrix -> Vector -> Vector >> >>Then you can define say: >> >> rotate90 = mapply rotationMatrix90 >> >> v' = rotate90 v >> >> > >... that's what I said about mulVec. > > I guess that means we agree...
Keean.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
