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

Re: [TS 270]--Re:Re: [TS 48]--Re:why isn't Rational[1,2] (apparently) atomic until it is evaluated?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg72530] Re: [TS 270]--Re:Re: [TS 48]--Re:why isn't Rational[1,2] (apparently) atomic until it is evaluated?
• From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
• Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 01:54:07 -0500 (EST)
• References: <200701041800.l04I00Qh014339@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 18:00:00 UT, Tom Zeller wrote:
> I suspect for the same reason that other unevaluated expression of the
> same basic form are non-atomic, e.g.
>
> In[2]:= g=Blort[a,b]
>
> Out[2]= Blort[a,b]
>
> This is not an atom ...1
>
> In[3]:= AtomQ[g]
> Out[3]= False
>
> ... because it can be taken apart
>
> In[4]:= g[[1]]
> Out[4]= a
>
> In[5]:= g[[2]]
> Out[5]= b
>
> In[6]:= g[[0]]
> Out[6]= Blort
>
> Tom Zeller
> Wolfram Research Technical Support

Yea, but it just feels weird. Okay, I am out of denial now and am
beginning to cope :-]
Thank you.

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