Re: Re: exchanging 2 elements in a list (problem with Block)
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg27791] Re: [mg27631] Re: exchanging 2 elements in a list (problem with Block)
- From: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 04:37:45 -0500 (EST)
- Organization: University of California, Berkeley
- References: <933FF20B19D8D411A3AB0006295069B0286951@dassne02.darmstadt.dsh.de> <3AAF97B7.8494FB81@cs.berkeley.edu> <000d01c0acc9$9995a8e0$9b16989e@machine1>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
I guess the examples of why Block is preferable to Module
don't seem convincing to me.
The first example is simply to avoid having the variable
i evaluated. In a language with single-level evaluation
it should be possible to quote variables. Thus
Table [Quote[i]^j,{j,3}] ; Hold[] in Mathematica is
not the same as this. I find Hold to be unuseable. For
reasons of the evaluation strategy in Mathematica, I
suppose Quote[] is difficult.
In my view, the result of Module is right, even though
the printout is bad. Establishing a local variable i and
then squaring it should not return the variable associated
with the global name i.
I don't understand what example 2 does. If the intention
is to dynamically hide the definition
of Dot and all its rules by the Block[{Dot}...]
then I suppose that is of some use. I didn't know that
would work for built-in "functions", and I suspect that it
doesn't. That is
Foo[x_]:=foobar[x]
Block[{Foo},Print[Foo[3]]]
prints Foo[3] not foobar[3] so the definition of Foo is
blocked. (works)
And similarly for Block[{Sin},Print[Sin[1.2]]] (works)
but not for Block[{Plus},Print[Plus[1,1]]] (doesn't work).
or Block[{Times=Plus},4!] (doesn't work[??])
I think the point of the other examples is to use dynamic
scope to hide definitions temporarily. That's OK if
used with restraint. Block[{D=3}, ...f[x]] presumably
breaks the Derivative function in the "call" to f[].
The Module "bugs" though are related to the erroneous
implementation of Module in mathematica. Faking the
module variables but by having equivalent user-syntax
alternatives looks like an implementation or
perhaps a design error.