On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Keean Schupke wrote: > 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...
... yes, and that I wonder if you read my former mails. I feel I'm repeating myself. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
