Please ignore the note below; I needed to normalise a series of numbers in the statistical sense of the word; making sure they add up to one. I accidentally mixed that up with the vector length sense of the word, which is of course a lot more cpu-heavy and a lot less useful beyond length 3 or 4.
Oops, my bad. Kas. > > On 12 August 2010 16:41, evan.raskob [lists] <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thought this was interesting (part of a side discussion from the racket >> list) >> >> >> > That's a nice occasion to point out something I noticed; (vnormalise) only > accepts vectors of length 3 or 4. I'm not sure why that is; a more > generalised function would be more convenient and powerful. Is this because > of some optimisation behind the scenes? > > Yours, > Kas. >
