Re: Re: Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg19311] Re: [mg19296] Re: [mg19269] Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!*From*: Jason Harris <j.harris at phys.canterbury.ac.nz>*Date*: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 23:42:46 -0400*References*: <7o5ier$rme@smc.vnet.net> <7oba5o$3p6@smc.vnet.net> <"199908060358.XAA08108"@smc.vnet.net> <v04210100b3d0c0366e0b@[172.16.41.9]> <"199908120524.BAA04506"@smc.vnet.net> <"199908130234.WAA07302"@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Carl Woll wrote: >Colin, > >Like you, I like subscripts and I don't like to use the Symbolize function. >You mentioned a few things that go wrong when you use subscripts, and I >have some proposed solutions. > > Colin Rose wrote: > >> The most common problem occurs when people simultaneously >> try to use: >> >> x AND x_1, x_2 etc >> >> They then set >> >> x=7, >> >> and get very confused when they get terms such as >> >> 7_1, 7_2, 7_3 >> >> These sorts of problems are easily avoided by NOT >> simultaneously using x WITH x_1, x_2... . > >An alternative solution to avoidance is to give Subscript the attribute >HoldFirst. For example, > >In[102]:= >ClearAll[Subscript] >SetAttributes[Subscript,{HoldFirst}] > ><snipped examples> > >Another problem you discussed in a later post: > > Colin Rose wrote: > >> Yes - it would have been nice if Clear[Subscript[m, 1]] had >> been 'made to work' in v4. At the moment, one has to use >> >> Unset[Subscript[m, 1]] >> >> or >> >> Clear[Subscript] (which clears all subscripted 'variables'). Unquestionably, clearing all subscripts is far too much of a shotgun approach. This would just break too many things. >If I want to clear a single definition, then Unset is acceptable. Yeah but its a hassle to remember. In fact if one looks at your own programming style, its obvious you clear variables before using them. If one looks at your code below you use ClearAll. You would be changing your programming style to then turn around and say... Clear[x,y,z,t]; x sub 0 =. y sub 0 =. z sub 0 =. It works, but is kind of ugly. The solution needs to be seamless. >The >problem I have is when I want to clear a lot of subscripted definitions for >a single base symbol. One approach is to make the definitions upvalues for >the base symbol. A neat alternative is to massage the downvalues of >Subscript directly, as in the following function: > > >In[107]:= >ClearAll[ClearSubscript] >SetAttributes[ClearSubscript, {HoldAll}] >ClearSubscript[a_] := Module[{b}, > DownValues[Subscript] = > Cases[DownValues[Subscript], (b_ :> _) /; FreeQ[b, >HoldPattern[Subscript[a, _]]]]; >] > ><snipped examples> > > >Finally, the point about ?m sub 1 brought up by Jason. > >> Jason Harris wrote: >> >> >Just using subscripted symbols has its problems though... >> > >> >For instance \!\(\(?m\_1\)\), that is ? m sub 1 will yield an >> >error. As will something like \!\(Clear[m\_1]\), that is Clear[ m > > >sub 1]. etc. This was just *one* example among many such ones to illustrate the problems with an "incomplete" approach. >One could similarly cook up a function that provides just the information >related to a base symbol as follows: > ><snipped> > >In[167]:= >SubscriptInformation[y] > >Global`y >y = 2 >y = 2 > 2 > >So what do you think? Are there any major problems with the above ideas? > Well I don't know if I would call the problems major but the solution is certainly not seamless. (Then again I don't suppose you intended it to be... ) In any good solution you should "set the object up", and then it should act just like a normal Mathematica object. Having to specifically remember to call things like ClearSubscript and SubscriptInformation, instead of the normal Mathematica functions that do these things, is in my opinion pretty ugly. One should just use the normal Mathematica functions Clear and '?'. It is possible to set up other parsing rules for '?' to enable this to be done automatically, but then you are going down the path the notation package takes... Similarly you would probably be able to get Clear working in such a way as to seamlessly call your ClearSubscript code when applicable. However, just fixing these functions is not going to fix the overall problem. The problem will occur in other places since you will not have "true symbols". The design goal should be, in my opinion : state that these composite objects are "symbols". Then have them treated like normal symbols throughout Mathematica, without needing to remember any specialized functions. Moreover, setting attributes on a system level function as major as Subscript is begging for trouble. Some packages will break because you assume Subscript has the attribute HoldFirst. ( E.g. consider the construction of a matrix of coordinates Table[Subscript[coord[i],j],{i,1,3},{j,1,3}]].) In a similar vein, packages that use OverHat would also break, if the attributes of OverHat are set to HoldFirst. For instance, if OverHat was used as complex conjugation. Most importantly, if you are calling some other package that requires variables to be symbols your solution will outright fail. For instance a simple example is the vector calculus package in Mathematica. (<< Calculus`VectorAnalysis`) The following fails without symbolizing x\_1, x\_2, x\_3, since coordinates need to be "symbols". \!\(SetCoordinates[Cartesian[x\_1, x\_2, x\_3]]\) Yet in many applications it might be convenient / applicable to have coordinates x sub 1, x sub 2, x sub 3. It can't be easily done without Symbolize. Symbols are a basic data type in Mathematica and any solution that doesn't seamlessly reproduce them is going to break in one place or another... Still, if you only have limited aspirations for your applications then changing attributes and introducing auxiliary functions could be enough to graft on an approximation to proper subscript handling. Cheers, Jason

**Re: Element Extraction**

**Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!**

**Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!**

**Re: Subscripts, Doh!!!**