Re: About resize() function

[David Bateman]

Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
> OK, so what? I'm not saying that resize is not useful, I'm just saying that
> resize (x, m) should not mean the same as resize (x, m, m). resize
> (zeros (3, 1), 4) should, IMHO, give zeros (4, 1), not zeros (4, 4) as
> it gives now. That makes no sense to me.
>
>   
The test I gave is a test that is needed that justifies the existence of 
resize at all. Otherwise we could just use zeros() instead in 
tril/triu.. Comparse to output of rand(4) and rand(4,1) .... Therefore 
in a certain logic (probably the one I use when I wrote resize) resize 
(arg, n) == resize(arg, n, n) makes sense compared to the output of 
zeros(4), ones(4), rand(4), etc...

D.


--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary