Re: new functional operator

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg125620] Re: new functional operator
• From: roby <roby.nowak at gmail.com>
• Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:50:05 -0500 (EST)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• References: <jjfd6e\$7u7\$1@smc.vnet.net> <jjpakk\$ov1\$1@smc.vnet.net> <jkcbme\$qh6\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```Hi Bobby

Well, if you remeber I was looking for a postfix style.
As such 5 out of your 6 suggestitions disqualify, the 6th one is the
"truly awful" original notation I was trying to replace.
Further I was looking for an operator form so again 3 out of 6
suggestitions disqualify.

Robert

On 21 Mrz., 11:48, DrMajorBob <btre... at austin.rr.com> wrote:
> 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.no... 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
>
> --
> DrMajor... at yahoo.com

```

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