MathGroup Archive 2012

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

Search the Archive

Re: new functional operator

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg125626] Re: new functional operator
  • From: Bill Rowe <readnews at>
  • Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:52:12 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:

On 3/21/12 at 5:45 AM, noqsiaerospace at (John Doty) wrote:

>It isn't clutter in any specific piece of code that's the problem:
>it's all the cluttered documentation. Many of us appreciated the
>wonderful Mathematica book when it existed, but Mathematica has too
>many unnecessary functions these days,

The problem is defining "unnecessary". A function you seldom or
never use might be one I use extensively. You would see this as
unnecessary function but I would see it as an essential function.

>For functions like the one we're discussing, it's much better to define
>it only when needed. Then, those trying to understand code that
>*doesn't* use that function (almost all Mathematica code ever written)
>won't have to waste time looking past it in the documentation.

True, if a function is defined at the time of use, the code
should be more understandable. But this rather defeats the point
of having compact notations you want to use often.

  • Prev by Date: Re: Different Color in ToString
  • Next by Date: Re: Different answers in mathematica and my calculator.
  • Previous by thread: Re: new functional operator
  • Next by thread: Re: new functional operator