[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
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
Prev by Date:
**Re: List concatenation speed**
Next by Date:
**Parallel Computing Toolkit with ssh tunnels**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Product**
Next by thread:
**Re: Product**
| |