Re: Variables in Iterator limits?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg109645] Re: Variables in Iterator limits?*From*: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>*Date*: Mon, 10 May 2010 06:37:39 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Stanford University*References*: <hs67fk$2rh$1@smc.vnet.net>

To make this query a bit more generic, suppose you're typing in at the beginning of a notebook a series of expressions that you're going to use later on expr1 := . . . expr2 := . . . expr3 := . . . . . . where each of these expressions contains some subset of a fairly lengthy set of global variables a, b, c, . . . to which no values have yet been assigned. Suppose further that as you're typing in these expressions, you may to test whether one or another of them (let's say expr2) works properly, without having any persistent side effects on that expression, or any of the previous or subsequent expression definitions, or any of the global variables, after the test is carried out, the test line deleted, and the expression definitions all reevaluated. One way to do this might reasonably seem to be to define a typical set of _numerical_ test values a1, b1, . . . and apply them as follows: testValues = {a->a1, b->b1, . . . } expr1 := . . . expr2 := . . . expr2 /. testValues expr3 := . . . . . . after which you remove the test line and re-evaluate all the definitions. But this approach apparently can encounter problems arising from the order of evaluations. So, how about testValues = {a=a1, b=b1, . . . } expr1 := . . . expr2 := . . . With[ testValues, expr2 ] expr3 := . . . . . . Is that a safe approach to this objective?