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

Re: Getting the Derivative of an HoldForm Expression

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg127925] Re: Getting the Derivative of an HoldForm Expression
• From: David Bailey <dave at removedbailey.co.uk>
• Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 04:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newout@smc.vnet.net
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsend@smc.vnet.net
• References: <k16jfv$bep$1@smc.vnet.net> <k1a28l$icg$1@smc.vnet.net> <k1pr0f$k0a$1@smc.vnet.net>

On 31/08/2012 09:01, nitgun at gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you very much. I'll keep this in mind and start to forget about HoldForm.
>

Remember that HoldForm is very useful in the right circumstances. It is 
useful to show expressions that are deliberately left unvevaluated - 
e.g. HoldForm[2+2].

In other contexts where an expression needs to be held, Hold is 
preferable because it is visible.

David Bailey
http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk