Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ordering function
0 views
Skip to first unread message
frhes
Mar 20, 2008, 3:59:19 AM3/20/08
to
Hi,
when using ordering within the definition of a pure function and applying this pure function within the definition of another function, which is to be minimized, I have the problem, that the ordering does not only order according to numeric values, but the ordering is already executed on the names of the arguments (probably using some canonical alphabetical order). Does anyone know of a way to suppress this behavior? May be by changing the attributes of the arguments?
Szabolcs Horvát
Mar 20, 2008, 6:49:58 AM3/20/08
to
frhes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when using ordering within the definition of a pure function and applying this pure function within the definition of another function, which is to be minimized, I have the problem, that the ordering does not only order according to numeric values, but the ordering is already executed on the names of the arguments (probably using some canonical alphabetical order). Does anyone know of a way to suppress this behavior? May be by changing the attributes of the arguments?
>
> Hi,
>
> when using ordering within the definition of a pure function and applying this pure function within the definition of another function, which is to be minimized, I have the problem, that the ordering does not only order according to numeric values, but the ordering is already executed on the names of the arguments (probably using some canonical alphabetical order). Does anyone know of a way to suppress this behavior? May be by changing the attributes of the arguments?
>
Use SetDelayed instead of Set. Without a concrete example it is
difficult to say more than this.
0 new messages