Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg47591] Re: Alternative to defining 'operator' function?*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:22:13 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 4/15/04 at 3:39 AM, H.L.Owen at dl.ac.uk (Owen, HL (Hywel)) wrote: >I often have programming problem where I'd like to calculate a set >of dot products, e.g. applying a list of square matrices >{R1,R2,R3...} to a vector v to obtain: >{R1.v,R2.R1.v,R3.R2.R1.v,...} >or other functions like that. >The method I've been using is to define an 'operator' function, >e.g. >DotOperator[M_] := Dot[M, #] & >Is there a simpler way than this that doesn't involve defining >functions like DotOperator? I would consider the following simpler (#.v)&/@{R1,R2,R3, ...} But since the only real difference is I didn't explicitly define a function like DotOperator, I don't know this meets your criteria above. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four