Ed Schofield wrote:
>On 22/06/2006, at 12:40 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
>
>
>
>>Actually I think using mat() (just an alias for the matrix
>>constructor) is a bad way to do it. That mat() (and most others on
>>that page) should probably be replaced with asmatrix() to avoid the
>>copy.
>>
On 6/23/06, Keith Goodman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/22/06, Bill Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> On 6/22/06, Ed Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> >
> > On 22/06/2006, at 12:40 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:> >> > > Actually I think using mat() (just an alias for the matrix> > > constructor) is
On 6/22/06, Bill Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/22/06, Ed Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 22/06/2006, at 12:40 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> >
> > > Actually I think using mat() (just an alias for the matrix
> > > constructor) is a bad way to do it. That mat() (and most othe
On 6/22/06, Ed Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 22/06/2006, at 12:40 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:> Actually I think using mat() (just an alias for the matrix> constructor) is a bad way to do it. That mat() (and most others on> that page) should probably be replaced with asmatrix() to avoid the
>
On 22/06/2006, at 12:40 AM, Bill Baxter wrote:
> Actually I think using mat() (just an alias for the matrix
> constructor) is a bad way to do it. That mat() (and most others on
> that page) should probably be replaced with asmatrix() to avoid the
> copy.
Perhaps the 'mat' function should
