cancel
Showing results for
Did you mean:
cancel
Showing results for
Did you mean:

Range variables

Range variables

9-Granite

King regards. Alvaro.

24-Ruby III

Hi, Alvaro!

I think now we not need range variables in Mathcad!

9-Granite

Sure, forgot ranges as it was defined, think more in intervals, like those that are needed in plot(fIx),x=a..b) or int(f(x),x=a..b).

Can use other notation, like x=a:b or x=[a,b] or something else.

Regards. Alvaro.

5-Regular Member

PTC has implement this in Prime.

Mike

9-Granite

Great! ... just a question: am I the only guy that see the new prime notation upside down? I read <i> as "give me the row" and the other as a column extractor.

Regards. Alvaro.

5-Regular Member
 Great! ... just a question: am I the only guy that see the new prime notation upside down? I read as "give me the row" and the other as a column extractor.

Good point.

Surely.....

This function should extract the desired row.

And this should extract the column.

Mike

19-Tanzanite

I agree. I have requested this more than once.

19-Tanzanite
 Surely.....This function should extract the desired row. And this should extract the column.Mike

If we were starting from nothing maybe, but we are not. If the row operator is what used to the column operator then that will be really confusing. Imagine you are workng in both MC15 and in Prime. When you switch back and forth the same operator would get rows in one case and columns in the other.

24-Ruby III

>are workng in both MC15 and in Prime

You are a big optimist

Sorry, we can use a convertor!

9-Granite

Yes, you're right, can't abandom years of this notation. But the introduction of this new one is visually confusing to me. Also I feel the notation in the matlab style as more powerfull and flexible than any other that I can figure.

Regards. Alvaro.

PD: 'end' can be implemented as a reserve word meaning something like "last(the first row of matrix above me) if I at first argument, or the first column if I appear in the second place of the subscript)".

19-Tanzanite
 Sorry, we can use a convertor!

Converting one to the other when reading the file isn't the problem. The problem is for the user (especially the ocassional user) to switch back and forth mentally.

19-Tanzanite
 Yes, you're right, can't abandom years of this notation. But the introduction of this new one is visually confusing to me.

I agree. But I think we are stuck with it being confusing one way or the other.

1-Newbie

There comes a time in every project when it requires burning of all your bridges in order to move forward. backwards compatibility hinders that progress.

MP is that project. i my opinion.

It should be started from scratch. implement all the good things learned during years of Mathcad development and dump all the blunders. This is the right time to re-evaluate everything, and make changes for the better. What PTC does now will stay with it for years, untill another major overhaul is due.

So i say if the syntax needs to be changed this is the time to do it. Convey to your customers that MP is a different beast. not a pretty face to your M15.

5-Regular Member
 If we were starting from nothing maybe, but we are not. If the row operator is what used to the column operator then that will be really confusing. Imagine you are workng in both MC15 and in Prime. When you switch back and forth the same operator would get rows in one case and columns in the other.

Totally understand, but with Prime moving to a whole new format it would have been a good chance to implement such changes with minimal hassle.

Mike

5-Regular Member

If the user is switching between the two, I would have thought they are more than capable mentally.

That's why I wouldn't .

Mike

5-Regular Member

Good point.

Perfect time to make the change. Most users of Mathcad will be able to deal with the change and new users won't have to.

Mike

19-Tanzanite

This is not going to be a quick transition though. with Prime simply replacing Mathcad 15. The first (and probably the second) version of Mathcad Prime will not be able to do a lot of the things Mathcad 15 can do, so the versions will co-exist for years. Having conflicting notation would confuse the heck out of people. Also, and much worse, what about when a Mathcad document is printed, say to a pdf? Then if the notation was changed it would be impossible to know whether it was a column or row operator unless you knew which version of Mathcad produced the pdf.

It's not even that clear cut to me that the notation would be better if it were reversed. If you assume that the brackets represent arrows it looks the wrong way round, but if you just look at them as brackets then the row operator is more horizontal, and the column operator is more vertical, just as you would expect.

IMHO, the amount of confusion that would result far outweighs any minor benefit.that might result from switching them.

5-Regular Member
 Having conflicting notation would confuse the heck out of people. Also, and much worse, what about when a Mathcad document is printed, say to a pdf? Then if the notation was changed it would be impossible to know whether it was a column or row operator unless you knew which version of Mathcad produced the pdf.

Good point Richard (nail on the hed comes to mind).

Mike

Community Manager
Status changed to: Archived

Hello,

We are archiving your idea as part of a general review. This action is based on the age of your idea and the total number of votes received, as per this announcement.

You can always post a new idea with all the details required in the form.