Re: new functional operator

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg125608] Re: new functional operator
• From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
• Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:46:51 -0500 (EST)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• References: <jjfd6e\$7u7\$1@smc.vnet.net> <jjpakk\$ov1\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```Here SIX several equivalent expressions from (IMHO) most intuitive or

Composition[g, f] /@ {1, 2, 3, 4}

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

g /@ f /@ {1, 2, 3, 4}

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

Apply[Composition, {g, f}] /@ {1, 2, 3, 4}

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

g@f@# & /@ {1, 2, 3, 4}

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

Compose[g, f@#] & /@ {1, 2, 3, 4}

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

{1, 2, 3, 4} // f /@ # & // g /@ # &

{g[f[1]], g[f[2]], g[f[3]], g[f[4]]}

The last is truly awful.

Bobby

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:18:47 -0500, roby <roby.nowak at gmail.com> wrote:

>> That creates a information fog that makes *all* Mathematica code harder
>> to understand, and Mathematica much harder to learn than it used to be.
>
> {1, 2, 3, 4} /// f///g
>
>
>> {1, 2, 3, 4} // f /@ # & // g /@ # &
>
> sorry but I absolutly can't agree with your opinion in this case, the
> former expression is more or less fogless and would be much easier to
> understand.
> The latter expression bears a lot of clutter.
>
> Robert
>
>
>

--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com

```

• Prev by Date: Re: new functional operator
• Next by Date: Re: Problems reading text files with embedded delimiters
• Previous by thread: Re: new functional operator
• Next by thread: Re: new functional operator