Re: Re: Product

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg87595] Re: [mg87558] Re: Product*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:42:09 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <ftmtsj$4lf$1@smc.vnet.net> <200804110956.FAA08319@smc.vnet.net> <ftq5gc$n1$1@smc.vnet.net> <200804130730.DAA11379@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu

Sorry about my typo "@" instead of "@@". Yes, of course that's what I was referring to: including a special, additional function that does what a special case of a more general construct. But simplicity and elegance of the language is only one design consideration. Another is usability. I can see someone coming to Mathematica who, among other things, just wants to get some computations = done that involve adding up a list of numbers, who would prefer to be able to use a single function Total rather than the combination of Plus and Apply. Szabolcs Horv=E1t wrote: > Murray Eisenberg wrote: >> But of course Total is also redundant! Plus @ {1,2,3,4} >> >> So the issue is one of language design: when does a particular case of= a >> more general construction occur so frequently that a special function >> should be introduced for it. > > ...Personally I think that the *syntax* Total[list] provides nothing ov= er > Plus @@ list, so just because summation is a common operation, a new > syntax should not be introduced for it. In fact I would consider the > introduction of too many redundant constructs bad language design. -- 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

**References**:**Re: Product***From:*Szabolcs Horvát <szhorvat@gmail.com>

**Re: Product***From:*Szabolcs Horvát <szhorvat@gmail.com>