17 Feb
2007
17 Feb
'07
3:47 a.m.
"Matthias Troyer" <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote in message news:B503A931-963F-4F5B-8DCF-C6617D48EAAD@phys.ethz.ch...
On 16 Feb 2007, at 19:24, Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
Anyway. IMO almost any solution would be good enough for me. v.update() would work either.
Why is
acc(v);
a problem if
v.update();
is fine?
I never said it's a problem. But from what understand it's completely different thing. acc(0) would be more close to v += 0; acc(v) is more like v *= 2; Genandiy