Hi richard

Ok I agree with you. I was afraid to get a mathematical one.
What I needed was a container where I could access element by 
specifying pair.
Did you published your class somewhere? I got lost with all these 
messages.

I think that if your class is better than Array2d we should substitute 
it
Have you evaluated the use of Array2d?

Stef




On mardi, novembre 26, 2002, at 02:26  am, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> 	Array2d for represent a 2d Array and to that regards (contrary
> 	to what I said) has a good name.  The idea is to have a
> 	matrix-like way of storing think.
> 	
> I find it rather odd to talk about a '2d array'.
> It isn't the *array* that's 2d, but its subscript space,
> and that isn't _really_ 2d either.
>
> I wrote my Matrix class to be just a plain Squeaky container.
> The reason I wrote it is that when I tried to *use* Array2D the
> interface confused the heck out of me, and a whole bunch of things that
> Array2D inherits don't actually work.
>
> My Matrix class supports elementwise arithmetic operations, but that's
> not "mathematical matrix manipulation", that's just what a *lot* of
> Squeak's generic containers do.
>
> The only "mathematical matrix manipulation" I provided is
> {vector,matrix} x {vector,matrix} multiplication, which is too useful
> to leave out, and serves the additional purpose of reminding people
> that Matrix>>* (copied from SequenceableCollection) is not Matrix>>+*.
>
> A class providing extensive (BLAS, LAPACK, ...) numerical operations
> would do well do be a separate class in order to constrain its elements
> more tightly.
>
>
>
Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch) 
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
  different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
  might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes