Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
MathGroup Archive
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 1999

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

Search the Archive

Standard Evaluation with UpValues

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg19355] Standard Evaluation with UpValues
  • From: "Ersek, Ted R" <ErsekTR at>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 23:09:35 -0400
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at

Section 7.1.3 of the excellent book "Power Programming With Mathematica The
Kernel" by David B. Wagner explains the main evaluation loop.  In that
Section it indicates UpValues for a symbol are applied before DownValues for
the symbol are applied.

OK then consider the case below where (f) has both an UpValue and a
DownValue defined by the user.

At Out[4] the UpValue for (f) was used.  In that case the DownValue couldn't
be used to evaluate f[t].  
Then at Out[5] the DownValue for (f) is used to evaluate  f[E] --> 1+E
before the kernel checked to see if the UpValue would apply (and it would
have).  I get the same result using Versions 3 and 4.

When the kernel evaluates g[f[E]] it must figure out that the Head is (g)
before it evaluates f[E].  After determining that the Head is (g) it checks
to see if (g) has any Hold* attributes, and continues with evaluation as
required.  So by the time the kernel evaluates f[E] it has all the
information it needs to know that the UpValue for (f) can be used.  However,
the DownValue is used instead.  Wait a minute, aren't UpValues applied
before DownValues are applied?

Can someone convince me that the main evaluation loop performs as explained
by David Wagner when evaluating In[5] below?  Also can someone give a
different example that more clearly shows that UpValues are used first?



Ted Ersek

For Mathematica tips, tricks see

  • Prev by Date: ContourShading with ListContourPlot
  • Next by Date: changing character set??
  • Previous by thread: Re: ContourShading with ListContourPlot
  • Next by thread: Re: Standard Evaluation with UpValues