On Thu, 22 May 2008 06:26:41 -0500
David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:47:44 +0200, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Using the trick of encapsulating the values inside single-element
> >lists one can make a transposition of the matrix and get
> >synchronici
On Wed, 21 May 2008 12:47:44 +0200, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:40:17 -0500
>"David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > > Today's little joke: Long ago I would have solved
>> > > this by storing the data as a list of rows and _also_
>> > > a list of column
On Tue, 20 May 2008 10:40:17 -0500
"David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Today's little joke: Long ago I would have solved
> > > this by storing the data as a list of rows and _also_
> > > a list of columns, updating each one any time the
> > > other changed. Just goes to show you th
On May 20, 10:40 am, "David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>
>
>
>
> pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:12:01 -0500
> > David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Well, ok. Like I said, I never _took_ the position tha
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:12:01 -0500
> David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Well, ok. Like I said, I never _took_ the position that it _should_
> > be a list of lists, I just said I didn't see the advantage to using
On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:12:01 -0500
David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, ok. Like I said, I never _took_ the position that it _should_
> be a list of lists, I just said I didn't see the advantage to using
> a single list.
I'm now thinking about a list of lists containing single elem
On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:48:03 +0200, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 19 May 2008 06:29:18 -0500
>David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Maybe you could be more specific? Various "positions" I've
>> taken in all this may well be untenable, but I can't think
>> of any that have
On Mon, 19 May 2008 06:29:18 -0500
David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you could be more specific? Various "positions" I've
> taken in all this may well be untenable, but I can't think
> of any that have anything to do with whether the data should
> be a single list instead of a li
On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:18:34 +0200, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Is there some reason that would be better? It would make a lot
>> of the code more complicated. Ok, it would require only one
>> bit of added code, I suppose, b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Is there some reason that would be better? It would make a lot
> of the code more complicated. Ok, it would require only one
> bit of added code, I suppose, but I don't see the plus side.
The plus side is you give up an untenable positi
On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:50:23 +0200, pataphor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >> window.pos = (x,y)
>> >>
>> >> seems more natural than
>> >>
>> >> window.SetPos(x,y);
>
>Yes, and to assign a row in a matrix I'd also like to use eithe
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> window.pos = (x,y)
> >>
> >> seems more natural than
> >>
> >> window.SetPos(x,y);
Yes, and to assign a row in a matrix I'd also like to use either tuples
or lists on the right side.
> def __add__(self, other):
> return
On Sat, 17 May 2008 00:27:31 -0300, "Gabriel Genellina"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(warning: it's a rather long message)
>
>En Fri, 16 May 2008 12:58:46 -0300, David C. Ullrich
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:59:41 -0300, "Gabriel Genellina"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(warning: it's a rather long message)
En Fri, 16 May 2008 12:58:46 -0300, David C. Ullrich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:59:41 -0300, "Gabriel Genellina"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
En Wed, 14 May 2008 18:15:41 -0300, David C. Ullrich
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
Th
ssible), and not any
>other object initialized
>from the [1,2,3] arguments. (Maybe this is some overreaction against C++
>"magic" constructors and such horrible things...)
Whatever - the idea here is that m.row[0] is going to walk and quack
exactly like that list would, but al
ave as little magic as possible on my objects: if it
says m.row[0] = [1,2,3] I expect m.row[0] to actually *be* that list (whenever
possible), and not any other object initialized from the [1,2,3] arguments.
(Maybe this is some overreaction against C++ "magic" constructors and such
horr
ut then
you'd have to say
m.row[0] = Row([1,2,3])
where I want to be able to say
m.row[0] = [1,2,3]
and have the Row created automatically.
_Also_ with these indexed properties my Matrix
can have m.row[j] and m.col[k] that look exactly
the same to a client - we don't want to store a
l
w[0] = [1,2,3]
and have the Row created automatically.
_Also_ with these indexed properties my Matrix
can have m.row[j] and m.col[k] that look exactly
the same to a client - we don't want to store a
list of rows internally and also store the same
data in a list of columns. Too cool.
Hmm, none
18 matches
Mail list logo
