Am 10.07.2009 12:49, Riccardo (Jack) Lucchetti schrieb: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Sven Schreiber wrote: > > >>> Oh, sorry, I should have said: the rev() function reverses the order of >>> the _rows_ of the matrix (from the example above, it could have been the >>> columns). >> >> Would it be worthwhile to generalize this to columns as well? Maybe >> using an optional second argument or so. I'm not sure about it, and I'm >> aware of rev(A')', just asking as long as it's still in "design stage". > > If you ask me, I'd rather have one function with the user in charge of > transposing things twice, rather than two and save the user the > inconvenience. IMHO, all other things being equal, the fewer functions > the better. But of course I'm open to change my mind on this. >
I agree that two separate functions would not be good. What I meant was something like: rev(A,1) -- reverses row-wise rev(A,2) -- reverses col-wise (or maybe rev(A,'c')) rev(A) -- defaults to /alias for rev(A,1) But I don't have a strong opinion, given gretl's short transposition syntax. -sven
