MathGroup Archive 2006

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional


On 10/22/06, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> Well, then, if you must have a function, how about saying that @
> "corresponds" to #1[#2]& ?

That is a close definition, but it doesn't quite match if f has
different attributes than Function.

I could possibly write a MakeExpression rule that would approximate @
(using another character without a built in meaning, obviously) in a
notebook environment, but I don't (think I) know how to write an
approximation for a console environment.

On 10/22/06, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> Well, then, if you must have a function, how about saying that @
> "corresponds" to #1[#2]& ? While it is not a built-in function, it
> does satisfy the relationship
>
> f@x === #1[#2]&[f,x]
>
> ??
>
> Andrzej
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2006, at 20:08, Chris Chiasson wrote:
>
> > On 10/22/06, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> >> Why
> >> does it matter whether something "corresponds" to a "function applied
> >> at some particular level" or is "just a shorthand" for some
> >> particular expression?
> >
> > I have wondered about it for a long time. I am just hoping to nail
> > down a definitive answer to improve my Mathematica knowledge.
> >
> > --
> > http://chris.chiasson.name/
>
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/


  • Prev by Date: Re: Using "=" vs ":="
  • Next by Date: Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
  • Previous by thread: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional