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

Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg106525] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
• From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
• Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:20:02 -0500 (EST)
• Organization: Stanford University
• References: <hhf5s3$h4o$1@smc.vnet.net> <hhhmhl$o48$1@smc.vnet.net>

In article <hhhmhl$o48$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
 Valeri Astanoff <astanoff at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Imho, when applying a rule  lhs -> rhs
> it's a risky practice to use the same symbol
> in 'lhs' and 'rhs', because, very often, there is
> no easy way to check what has been done.
> 
> Anyway, for occasional users, you're right : it's crazy!
> 

Thank you -- that's really my primary point.  

And I'd add: it's damaging (to users, and to Mathematica).

As for writing rules, I'd not even try writing something compound, like 
a + b or especially something like 1 + I, on the lhs, because I'd have 
no intuition as to how this would work (how spaces would be handled, 
etc.)

But a single character on the lhs?  It works correctly AFAIK for every 
other single-character in the alphabet.  Why shouldn't one expect it to 
work for I?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
    • From: Daniel Lichtblau <danl@wolfram.com>