[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs. user-defined functions

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg6995] Re: [mg6943] Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs. user-defined functions
• From: "Sherman.Reed" <sherman.reed at worldnet.att.net>
• Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Bob,
It depends on the design of the function.  In general, an extra option is
indicative of
a typo error, and would probably produce junk.  Built in functions or
commands
tend (in my experience) to be very robust.  Commands and functions from
add-on packages tend to vary more, some robust and some not. In my own
design, I rarely
consider the addition of an extra option ( and I should )

Sherman C. Reed
sherman.reed at worldnet.att.net

----------
> From: Robert Lawrence <r.lawrence at worldnet.att.net>
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Subject: [mg6943] Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs.
user-defined functions
> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:48 PM
> 
> Does anyone know why the response to the attempted use of a function
> with an unknown option differs depending on whether the function is
> built in or user-defined?
> 
> If I try to use, say, Plot, with an unknown option (call it "newopt"),
> I get the error message Plot::optx: Unknown option newopt in
> Plot[.....].  However, if I use a user-defined function with an
> unknown option, I get no error message -- rather, the option is simply
> ignored.
> 
> Bob Lawrence