Re: Pure Functions in rules

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg16003] Re: Pure Functions in rules
• From: tburton at brahea.com (Tom Burton)
• Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:27:14 -0500
• Organization: Brahea, Inc.
• References: <7ag34l\$aie@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

```Will,

Suggest using delayed evaluation (:>) of rule's RHS when that RHS
depends on a symbol (m here) introduced on the LHS.

Don't blame pure functions; blame Map. Any function mapped onto an
undefined symbol returns that symbol. When you use "->" instead of ":>".
you allow the function to operate before m is defined. That's why you
get "{1,2,3}".

Tom

In[208]:= {1, 2, 3} /. m_List :> (2*#1 & ) /@ m
Out[208]= {2, 4, 6}

On 17 Feb 1999 22:58:13 -0500, in comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica you
wrote:

>It appears that I cannot depend on using a pure function
>in a pattern-matching rule.
>...
>
>In[79]:=     {1,2,3}/.m_List->f[m]
>Out[79]=    {2,4,6}
>
>Now try this:
>
>In[80]:=     {1,2,3}/.(m_List->(2*#& /@ m))
>Out[80]=    {1,2,3}
>
>Does anyone (say, at WRI for example) care to comment on
>this?
>
>Will Self

Tom Burton

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Plot[] problem (plnr) - help !!!
• Next by Date: Strange result of Limit function in Mathematica3.0
• Previous by thread: Re: Pure Functions in rules
• Next by thread: Re: Pure Functions in rules