At 12:07 PM -0400 9/29/2004, Gregory Lypny wrote:
In doing some statistical work, it occurred to me that Revolution's
arrays would be greatly enhanced if we could access sub-arrays just
like we can with itemized and line-delimited lists.
I agree it's a good idea. It might be harder than it looks,
> At 12:07 PM -0400 9/29/2004, Gregory Lypny wrote:
> >In doing some statistical work, it occurred to me that Revolution's
> >arrays would be greatly enhanced if we could access sub-arrays just
> >like we can with itemized and line-delimited lists.
>
> I agree it's a good idea. It might be harder
Maybe you could use the intersect command to split out subarrays.
Otherwise, remember that you can easily combing an array by comma and
then use the average(item 1 to 4 of x) approach.
At 6:23 PM -0400 29/9/04, Greg wrote:
To: Revolution <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Conten
At 10:34 PM +0200 9/29/2004, jbv wrote:
another interesting feature would be some sort of "find" function
for arrays... for instance :
put "myText" into T[5,8]
find "myText" in T > would return "5,8"
or a list of found
chunks if it is in mo
--- "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 10:34 PM +0200 9/29/2004, jbv wrote:
> >another interesting feature would be some sort of
> "find" function
> >for arrays... for instance :
> > put "myText" into T[5,8]
> > find "myText" in T > would return "5,8"
> >
On Thursday, September 30, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Jan Schenkel wrote:
If my memory serves me well, Geoff Canyon started a
thread on the xTalk mailing list a while ago that
proposed functions itemOffsets, wordOffsets and
lineOffsets which would return all the occurences'
locations.
So if we could have a
