Re: The side-effects of mixing TraditionalForm inside expressions.

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg110802] Re: The side-effects of mixing TraditionalForm inside expressions.*From*: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>*Date*: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 07:42:29 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <201007051002.GAA15102@smc.vnet.net> <i0urh5$6l9$1@smc.vnet.net>

In article <i0urh5$6l9$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski at gmail.com> wrote: > 1 + Unevaluated[1] > > 2 Fascinating. I'd call this one more classic Mathematica gotcha, and one more example of fairly poor quality of Mathematica documentation -- or at least of the very arcane character of Mathematica for "ordinary users", once you get to any depth within it. Help Browser says: Unevaluated[expr] represents the unevaluated form of expr when it appears as the argument to a function. So, what does Unevaluated[expr] do when it is NOT the argument to a function? (The previous statement I'd say clearly implies that there are times when Unevaluated[expr] does appear as an arg to function, and therefore times when it does not -- and both need to be defined.) So, if Unevaluated[expr] is entered all by itself in a cell, is it then "the argument to a function"? If the cell contains 1 + Unevaluated[expr] as above, does that make the Unevaluated[expr] an argument to a function -- or not? (I can see arguing that above queries either way -- and digging further down into the Help Browser examples is not very helpful.) How would one find out from Mathematica documentation what "argument to a function" means, precisely? Is there any significance to "argument to" rather than the (I think) more common usage "argument of"? Is Unevaluated[expr] used in a syntactically acceptable way _always_ the argument to a function?

**References**:**The side-effects of mixing TraditionalForm inside expressions.***From:*"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org>