Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2010

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

Search the Archive

Re: pure function

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg113714] Re: pure function
  • From: Stephan <stschiff80 at googlemail.com>
  • Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:40:17 -0500 (EST)

Thanks so much. This was very valuable help!

Stephan

Am 08.11.2010 um 09:20 schrieb Leonid Shifrin:

> Stephan,
>
> Yes, sure, use With instead of Module:
>
> In[2]:== getFunc:==With[{a==2},Function[{x},a*x]]
>
> In[3]:== f==getFunc
>
> Out[3]== Function[{x$},2 x$]
>
> So, by using Module, you can create a closure whose state (variable <a>
> in this case) comes from surrounding context but can be modified by it
> at a later time. Using With gets you a textual substitution of a value that
> a given expression had, at the moment when With was invoked.
>
> You can also accomplish your goal  somewhat differently, by redefining your getFunc:
>
> In[4]:==
> Clear[getFunc];
> getFunc[y_] :== Function[{x}, y*x]
>
> In[6]:== getFunc[2]
>
> Out[6]== Function[{x$}, 2 x$]
>
> The semantics of parameter-passing in Mathematica is somewhat similar to With:
> parameters are textually substituted to the body before the body starts to evaluate.
> There are a few subtle differences (related to name collision resolution in nested
> scoping constructs), but they do not show up in this particular case.
>
> Regards,
> Leonid
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Stephan <stschiff80 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a function that returns a pure function:
>
> In[1]:== getFunc :== Module[{a==2}, Function[{x}, a * x]]
>
> In[2]:== f == getFunc
>
> Out[2]== Function[{x$}, a$57 x$]
>
>
> Is there any way, to have the body of the returned function contain the actual _value_ of the local variable a, instead of the _symbol_ ?
>
> So I would like the returned function to be written as
>
>        Function[{x$}, 2 x$]
>
> The reason is, that I would like to have a quick way to actually see the value instead of digging out the local variable a$57...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephan
>
>


  • Prev by Date: Re: pure function
  • Next by Date: Re: pure function
  • Previous by thread: Re: pure function
  • Next by thread: Re: pure function