Re: Re: Prefix function syntax f @ x

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg66778] Re: [mg66651] Re: [mg66638] Prefix function syntax f @ x*From*: Gianluca Gorni <gorni at dimi.uniud.it>*Date*: Tue, 30 May 2006 05:48:18 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <200605250658.CAA03726@smc.vnet.net> <200605260817.EAA01716@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

I discovered the @ notation not very long ago, and have been using it often ever since. One clear advantage is that it spares us the hunt for the critical spot for the closing "]", for example if we are editing a pre-existing expression. You may be familiar with the standard math "circle" notation for composition of functions, "f\circ g" in TeX. You can think of the "@" notation as an extension of that: f \circ g(x), meaning f(g(x)), translates as f @ g[x] or even as f @ g @ x Gianluca Gorni On 26 mag 2006, at 10:17, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: > > On 25 May 2006, at 15:58, Kristen W Carlson wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> David Wagner emphasizes that he doesn't use the syntax >> function@argument (p. 37n), no explanation. To me it seems very >> handy. >> Any thoughts? > > > I also never use it (although until I now have never considered why). > I guess the reason must be is that f[x] or f(x) is the standard > mathematical notation for the value of a function f at x and I am > used to it. I don't have this problem with @@, /@ or even @@@ > probably because these are programming constructs that do not > correspond to any standard mathematical concepts. > > Andrzej Kozlowski > Tokyo, Japan >

**References**:**Prefix function syntax f @ x***From:*"Kristen W Carlson" <carlsonkw@gmail.com>

**Re: Prefix function syntax f @ x***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>