Community Tip - Need to share some code when posting a question or reply? Make sure to use the "Insert code sample" menu option. Learn more! X
Whilst playing around with some array extraction functions, I noticed that Mathcad Prime 8 partially restores Mathcad 15's ability to directly use ranges as function arguments.
Stuart
Here's vec modified to work in Mathcad Express 8 and operating over nested range arguments:
I created an IsAtom function to determine whether an argument is a scalar, function or string and assumed that anything else potentially has multiple elements (ie, is an array or a range). There have been several occasions when an IsRange function would have been nice.
With my usual unbridled optimism, I hope the ability to use simple ranges as functions arguments is a foretaste of things to come - that is, fully stepped ranges and arbitrary sequences as arguments. Indeed, I'd like to see proper, arbitrary sequences as a new data type.
Stuart
This is strange, I was just about to reply to a reply but the reply has disappeared (the original email is in my mail app, so I have good reason to suspect that I wasn't hallucinating). I suspect it may have been regarded as spam. However, it did link to a somewhat relevant Prime 3.1 thread where I noted the breaking of sequences in for loops: https://community.ptc.com/t5/PTC-Mathcad/Prime-3-1-Problem-with-until-function/m-p/402110/highlight/true#M157785
Still broken in Prime 8 ...
Stuart
@StuartBruff wrote:
This is strange, I was just about to reply to a reply but the reply has disappeared (the original email is in my mail app, so I have good reason to suspect that I wasn't hallucinating).
It could have been an automatically generated posting of a spam bot.
Hi StuartBruff,
Thanks for your attention!
This is to inform you that the reply you saw was removed as spam since the author edited his/her original reply and added a spam link into the post.
Thank you.
Regards
Emily
@ezhou wrote:
Hi StuartBruff,
Thanks for your attention!
This is to inform you that the reply you saw was removed as spam since the author edited his/her original reply and added a spam link into the post.
Thank you.
Regards
Emily
Thanks, Emily. I suspected as much - the nice thing about the emails is that they preserve such evidence! 🙂
It's just strange that the first link was relevant ... 🤔
Stuart
It's just strange that the first link was relevant ... 🤔
Its not strange strange, but it's a sign that these automated spam bots are getting better and better. Bad for us!