MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Conventional way of doing "struct"-like things?

David Park wrote:
> I would prefer your second method because it seems more natural and is just
> a mnemonic shortcut for Part. Such simple definitions can be quite useful.
> The method is also easily extended to more complex structures with sub-lists
> or even conditional sub-lists.
> As far as general Mathematica style is concerned you seem pretty savvy as it
> is. You will probably get many suggestions so I'll throw in my two cents and
> hope it doesn't too much conflict with the experts.
> 1) Prefer functional programming to procedural programming.
> 2) Localize variables in function definitions, With or Module statements.
> Avoid setting Global values for simple symbols like x.
> 3) Keep things symbolic as long as possible.
> 4) You seem to come from a programming background. Just to nudge in a
> different direction I would say don't think of Mathematica so much as a
> programming language. Think of it as a piece of paper on which you are
> writing and developing your ideas. Learn how to use sectional grouping and
> text cells to provide discussion.
> 5) Build up generated knowledge. Write usage statements. Put developed
> routines in a Routines section at the top of your notebook. Maybe you can
> eventually transfer them from package purgatory to a real package.

Thanks for the ideas.  In fact, I'd been doing pretty much all of these 
as it was ... :-).

Erik Max Francis && max at &&
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
   Every human being is a problem in search of a solution.
    -- Ashley Montague

  • Prev by Date: Re: Beginning syntax problems
  • Next by Date: Problems with absolute PlotRange
  • Previous by thread: Re: Conventional way of doing "struct"-like things?
  • Next by thread: Re: Conventional way of doing "struct"-like things?