Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg47968] Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 01:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On 5/2/04 at 4:50 AM, drbob at bigfoot.com (DrBob) wrote: >When you say this, however: >>>But this phrase could also be taken to mean "does not affect >>>evaluation of arguments" which is correct. >NO function affects evaluation of its arguments, or if one did, >what would that look like? How about Plot? Plot does evaluate its arguments in a non-standard way as compared to say Exp or Sqrt. So, some functions do affect the way their arguments are evaluated. >Yes, the author probably had something in mind that IS true; but >what he wrote isn't true, and that's been pointed out before. Many >times. So far as I know, EVERYWHERE the wrapper concept is >mentioned in the documentation, it's incorrect. Or, if it is >correct in some unknown sense, it's a simple matter to link those >references to an explanation. >Many of us are doing WRI's training, consulting, and debugging for >them, negating the value of our work by giving it away for free; >the least WRI can do is respond when we point out confusion in the >documentation. I agree there are several aspects of the documentation that could be made clearer and that the documentation for "wrapper" functions like BaseForm or Matrix form is an example of documentation that could be made clearer. I don't agree the documentation is clearly incorrect. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- From: "J. McKenzie Alexander" <jalex@lse.ac.uk>
- Re: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?