Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

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

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

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg70705] Re: [mg70633] Re: [mg70587] Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
• From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
• Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 05:45:06 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <200610200921.FAA11092@smc.vnet.net> <200610210914.FAA29189@smc.vnet.net> <2A8E209D-C4D9-45C1-933B-5E3D955D99C5@mimuw.edu.pl> <acbec1a40610210543k3a861eb7tb3bdb777170618b@mail.gmail.com> <2F11E8C9-D5C5-45EC-BA91-7F52E72CCC3B@mimuw.edu.pl> <acbec1a40610220224h4d154c37rd6b0d909820cfd19@mail.gmail.com> <0F88AC40-82C0-4E0C-9872-EC6EF0EECAC2@mimuw.edu.pl> <acbec1a40610220408k5215a9fdh89d3fa5d7f840661@mail.gmail.com>

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/

• References:
  • Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
    • From: "Will Robertson" <wspr81@gmail.com>
  • Re: Programming style: postfix/prefix vs. functional
    • From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris@chiasson.name>