Re: Better way to test the number of arguments?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg132644] Re: Better way to test the number of arguments?
• From: Bob Hanlon <hanlonr357 at gmail.com>
• Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:44:03 -0400 (EDT)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net
• References: <20140427064225.DB5346A1C@smc.vnet.net>

```CORRECTION

I left off there blank on the function:

ddSaPartial[f_][args__]  := D[f[args],  {Rest@{args}}]

2014-04-27 8:56 GMT-04:00 Bob Hanlon <hanlonr357 at gmail.com>:

> ddSaPartial[f][args__]  := D[f[args],  {Rest@{args}}]
>
>
>
> Bob Hanlon
>
>
> 2014-04-27 2:42 GMT-04:00 <pgeipi10 at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> I have the following code that produces the gradient of a function (with
>> respect to all but the first variable). There is probably a better way that
>> avoids the Switch.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Pavel
>>
>> ddSaPartial[func_][t_, s__] := Switch[Length[{s}],
>>   1, {Derivative[0, 1][func][t, s]},
>>   2, {Derivative[0, 1, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 1][func][t, s]},
>>   3, {Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1][func][t, s]},
>>   4, {Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 0, 1][func][t, s]},
>>   5, {Derivative[0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0][func][t, s],
>>    Derivative[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1][func][t, s]}
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Better way to test the number of arguments?
• Next by Date: Re: missing in Manipulate
• Previous by thread: Re: Better way to test the number of arguments?
• Next by thread: Re: Better way to test the number of arguments?