Re: new functional operator

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg125531] Re: new functional operator*From*: John Doty <noqsiaerospace at gmail.com>*Date*: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:39:00 -0500 (EST)*Delivered-to*: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com*References*: <jjfd6e$7u7$1@smc.vnet.net> <jjpakk$ov1$1@smc.vnet.net>

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:34:12 PM UTC-6, roby wrote: > > > > I don't have any problem agreeing this notation looks nicer than say > > > > {1, 2, 3, 4} // f /@ # & // g /@ # & > > > > And, I can set up the definition in init.m so that it is always > > available without needing to define it in each notebook where I > > would use it. > > > > But it presents another issue. Unless you are writing code for > > yourself you will never share with someone else, you will be > > making your code much more difficult to understand. > > Not any more so than any other specialized function you might define for your problem. You always need to be clear about notation and conventions in Mathematica code. This case is much easier than most, I think. > > > > Thats why I would prefer /// as postfix-map operator to be implemented > by the Mathematica staff. > Any Mathematica staff member listening ? Please, no. Mathematica is already bloated with functions trivially implementable using more basic functions. That creates a information fog that makes *all* Mathematica code harder to understand, and Mathematica much harder to learn than it used to be.