[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?
In article <fv1mdf$ona$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> You seem to have completely missed my point. You complained about
> "abstruse" Mathematica symbols such as @, /@, @@ etc. You seem to be
> oblivious to the fact that
>
> 1. You never need to use them yourself. Each of them can be replaced
> by a much more "readable form".
> 2. TeX uses special forms such as {,$, &, %,\ and plenty of even more
> "abstruse" instructions. A typical fragment of TeX code looks like this:
>
Not sure I complained about these. In fact I routinely use a number of
them --- but also find others in fact mysterious or arcane, for me
anyway.
What I did ask for --- would still ask for --- was, first of all the
proper technical name for this class of non-alphabetical symbols or
commands or operators in Mathematica? -- what they're called as a group,
to distinguish them from alphabetical symbol names? --- so I could ask
about them properly.
Second and more important, I asked where, if anywhere, I could find (in
a single place) a short list (like perhaps a half-dozen page or less)
summarizing _all_ of these non-alphabetical operators, with a brief
statement of what each of them does, or what it's good for --- so that I
could identify ones I'd missed and decide which of these I might want to
learn more about.
I'd still be happy to have an answer to this query.
And thirdly, I frankly think it would be an interesting exercise in
interface research --- and a _useful_ one for Wolfram's interface
designers --- to have some systematic data on which of these
non-alphabetical operators are heavily used and which are seldom used,
by different categories of Mathematica users. I'd at least have an
interest in that, out of pure curiosity.
Prev by Date:
**Re: Cropping a surface to a sphere**
Next by Date:
**Re: Enable multicore calculation ?**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Wolfram User Interface Research?**
Next by thread:
** Does Mathematica really need more printed, introductory documentation?**
| |