Re: Re: problem with Pick
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg78286] Re: [mg78222] Re: [mg78194] problem with Pick
- From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <acbec1a40706230431p4f1db9a9i4320680dda027396@mail.gmail.com>
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/