So you have added stamp statement to compilation statement. AFAICS
this is wrong: we should create stamp after _all_ compilations
finished successfully, while this way will create stamp already
after first batch of compilations finished.
I don't get this. So let me ask the following.
Is it
I was thinking a bit about matrix maniputaltion package
by Raoul Bourquin. It seems that its operations are
useful and general enough to have them a part of default
category definition. In fact, most of them make sense
for 2D arrays, so maybe we should make them more general.
Another thing. I
(5) - m([1, 3], [2, 4])
+2 4 +
(5) | |
+32 34+
Type: Matrix(Integer)
It seems that we could extend it to lists of ranges, essentially
making such indexing
Unfortunately, the original Makefile.in doesn't state a reason why
there must be SPADLIST1 up to SPADLIST99. So my guess is that it
speeds up compilation.
This was discussed on the list: approximately compile time for batch
of f1,...,fn is startup time + time of f1 + ... + time of fn
On 07/05/2013 05:19 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
Unfortunately, the original Makefile.in doesn't state a reason why
there must be SPADLIST1 up to SPADLIST99. So my guess is that it
speeds up compilation.
This was discussed on the list: approximately compile time for batch
of f1,...,fn is startup
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
You forgot to answer my question with respect to (quit).
Is the '(quit)' really needed for some lisp flavors or can one
assume that interpsys automatically returns after fileinput in
batch-mode? In fact, the '(quit)' in this place looks more like a
bug and
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
On 07/05/2013 05:19 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
Unfortunately, the original Makefile.in doesn't state a reason why
there must be SPADLIST1 up to SPADLIST99. So my guess is that it
speeds up compilation.
This was discussed on the list: approximately compile time for
On 5 July 2013 11:14, Ralf Hemmecke r...@hemmecke.org wrote:
Maybe one can also consider something like
m(3..5, 2..6)
for selecting rows 3,4,5 and columns 2,3,4,5,6 out of a bigger matrix.
Or maybe even m(1..n by 2, 1..n).
+1
And somehow I have the impression it can be useful to
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
Opinions?
+1
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
m(3..5, 2..6)
yes, like matlab
Another idea is to index by IntegerMod(n) elements.
If an index exceeds the bounds I would rather prefer an error message.
Franz
--
You received this message
