|
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg70662] Re: [mg70633] Re: [mg70587] Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
- From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:20:20 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst
- References: <200610200921.FAA11092@smc.vnet.net> <200610210914.FAA29189@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: murray at math.umass.edu
A correction to my preceding response to your posting:
In the Help Browser, if you use the Master Index tab and search for @,
you WILL find an entry:
@ (function application)
Chris Chiasson wrote:
> One thing I have wondered is, what function corresponds to the short
> hand "@". I know @ appears in Operate. Also, the ? can sometimes tell
> what function an operator represents (try ?/@ ) , but ?@ only gives
> System`$ (the symbol $ in the context System).
>
>
> On 10/20/06, Will Robertson <wspr81 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As a newcomer to Mathematica, I'm a little unsure on what "good style"
>> would be in this programming language. I notice that several functions
>> have prefix and postfix notations such as //. for ReplaceRepeated, /@
>> for Map, and so on.
>>
>> Clearly using these forms makes the code more compact, but sacrifices
>> some level of readability. Are there guidelines or suggestions that
>> have built up over the years of whether these are "good" or "bad" to
>> use?
>>
>> If it's simply personal preference, what do you like to use?
>> --
>> Many thanks,
>> Will Robertson
>>
>>
>
>
--
Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305
Prev by Date:
Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
Next by Date:
Re: undocumented setting for the Frame option revised!
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
|