8 Jul
2005
8 Jul
'05
5:24 p.m.
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Keean Schupke wrote:
Henning Thielemann wrote:
does it not make sense to define matrix applicaion:
mapply :: Matrix -> Vector -> Vector
Then you can define say:
rotate90 = mapply rotationMatrix90
v' = rotate90 v
... that's what I said about mulVec.
I guess that means we agree...
... yes, and that I wonder if you read my former mails. I feel I'm repeating myself.