Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2001
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2001

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

Search the Archive

Re: Should Pure Functions Require &

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg29744] Re: Should Pure Functions Require &
  • From: "Orestis Vantzos" <atelesforos at hotmail.com>
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 03:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
  • Organization: National Technical University of Athens, Greece
  • References: <9i06ah$h0l$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Would Select[data, #!=0] be interpreted as
Select[data, #!=0&] or as Select[data, #!=0]& ?
Why the first and not the second(or vice versa)?
Orestis

Ersek, Ted R" <ErsekTR at navair.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:9i06ah$h0l$1 at smc.vnet.net...
> I stated wondering if all would work well if pure functions didn't require
&
> at the end. I am thinking it would be great if a future version of
> Mathematica would make the use of & optional.
>
> So for example we could use
>   Select[data, #!=0]
> instead of
>   Select[data, #!=0&]
>
>
> and we could use
>    #^2 /@expr
> instead of
>    #^2& /@expr
>
> I would want to have pure functions ending with & optional rather than
> prohibited for backward compatibility.  Wouldn't life be better if we
didn't
> have to use &. Is there a reason why my suggestion would not work?
>
> Regards,
>   Ted Ersek
>   Download Mathematica tips, tricks from
>   http://www.verbeia.com/mathematica/tips/Tricks.html
>
>




  • Prev by Date: Re: List-Operations on Heads other than List
  • Next by Date: Re: List-Operations on Heads other than List
  • Previous by thread: Re: Should Pure Functions Require &
  • Next by thread: RE: Should Pure Functions Require &