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

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>