MathGroup Archive 2007

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Re: problem with Pick


On 6/26/07, Chris Chiasson <chris at chiasson.name> wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Oyvind Tafjord <tafjord at wolfram.com> wrote:
<snip/>
>  > As for having the default Pick have a level specification of 1, there is
> > much to be said for that, and given all the confusion that has arisen, that
> > might have been the more practical design. Although for the original
> > purposes where list and sel were supposed to have the same structure (say,
> > two matrices), this seems less elegant.
>
> What about making the Automatic level specification always choose {1}
> or greater if both list and sel are not atomic? If the user
> specifically wants to test the whole expression, then it could be
> specified manually? Would that break a lot of code? (It wouldn't break
> any sparse matrix code, would it?)
>

Errata:
I forgot that SparseArray is Atomic as Andrzej mentioned. In the
suggestion above, I wasn't meaning to change the present (special)
behavior of SparseArray.

-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/


  • Prev by Date: Re: search for an operator in an expression
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: search for an operator in an expression
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: problem with Pick
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: problem with Pick