Oh ok, I think I see where the problem is. There's a mistake/bug in how I rerepresent the nested array. I represent that array as a 2x3 internally, when it should actually be a 3x2. Which is why I was thinking the printing was (and still is) backwards.
However, these two statements: > (.index m (int-array [0 1])) > and > (-> m (nth 0) (nth 1)) I don't expect to yield the same results. I would expect (.index m (int-array [0 1])) and (-> m (nth 1) (nth 0)) to yield the same results. This is because the first is equivalent to taking item 0 in the first dimension (always rows) and item 1 in the second dimension (always columns), whereas the second type of statement would say (in your example) take item 0 of the last dimension (columns in this case) and then take item 1 of next to last dimension (rows in this case). On a related note, I am currently representing the matrices in column- major order, which is different from how C and Numpy represent matrices internally. Thinking about matrices in column major order came more naturally to me (and I think the Colt library also represents in column major order), but I have been thinking about changing it. -Adler --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
