MathGroup Archive 2008

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

Search the Archive

Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg88022] Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?
  • From: Will Robertson <wspr81 at>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:27:15 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <fuhfdc$ihb$> <fuhrka$s88$> <fuimva$9jv$>

On 2008-04-22 04:08:34 +0930, AES <siegman at> said:

>> together and create an unreadable mess --- but of course, if you did
>> exactly the same thing with the FullForm equivalents then the result
>> would be just as hard to read, if not more so.
> Don't agree with you on this -- but nonetheless will take your further
> comment to heart and go off and finally learn how to use @ .

Oh, I just meant to say that you're better off splitting things up into
chunks and commenting each part if it doesn't make any sense.

Here's some code of which I'm not particularly proud but which, kind
of, demonstrates this idea:

ListCombinations[in_List, AND_, NOT_] := Module[{s, x},=E2=80=A8    s ==

Tuples[{# &, NOT[#] &}, Length@in];=E2=80=A8    s = Thread[MyApply[#, i=
n]] & /@
s /. MyApply[x_, y_] -> x[y];=E2=80=A8    s = AND @@ # & /@ s;=E2=80=A8=
    Most@s (*
Last element is "NOT all" -- we're not using that one *)=E2=80=A8  ]
ListCombinations[{a, b, c}, And, Not]

If I'd chained all those s= into a single statement (which is probably
how I wrote it, however long ago) it would be even harder to read (and
that second line is pretty messy), regardless of whether those @@ and &
and /. were Apply[], Function[], Replace[], and so on.


  • Prev by Date: Re: Print[Plot] vs Print[text,Plot]?
  • Next by Date: installing Playe rPro killed using Mathematica itself: BEWARE!
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?
  • Next by thread: Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?