Re: UML-like diagrams for Mathematica

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg63037] Re: UML-like diagrams for Mathematica*From*: "Chris Chiasson" <chris.chiasson at gmail.com>*Date*: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:57:32 -0500 (EST)*References*: <dnbn24$5ru$1@smc.vnet.net><dned04$t4s$1@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

One problem with trying to find structure in symbols is that rules which can only work with a certain symbol may not even be associated with that symbol. cf: y[x]=expr ... the rule is only "associated" with y, but will only work if both y and x are present. It seems like symbols don't have any structure besides context (the stuff in front of `) (I would guess symbols themselves are Atomic). My guess is that a symbol is really "defined by" what rules are eventually applied to it. P.S. Calling SetOptions seems much like calling Set. Neither of these commands actually prevents you from doing what you want with a particular symbol. They just operate on lists of rules that are used in "default" transformations. One may override SetOptions with an option in the "function call". One may override Set with Block. -- http://chrischiasson.com/contact/chris_chiasson