Re: Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs. user-defined functions
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg6995] Re: [mg6943] Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs. user-defined functions
- From: "Sherman.Reed" <sherman.reed at worldnet.att.net>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:48:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Bob, It depends on the design of the function. In general, an extra option is indicative of a typo error, and would probably produce junk. Built in functions or commands tend (in my experience) to be very robust. Commands and functions from add-on packages tend to vary more, some robust and some not. In my own design, I rarely consider the addition of an extra option ( and I should ) Sherman C. Reed sherman.reed at worldnet.att.net ---------- > From: Robert Lawrence <r.lawrence at worldnet.att.net> > To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net > Subject: [mg6943] Unknown options in Mma 3.0: built-in functions vs. user-defined functions > Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 7:48 PM > > Does anyone know why the response to the attempted use of a function > with an unknown option differs depending on whether the function is > built in or user-defined? > > If I try to use, say, Plot, with an unknown option (call it "newopt"), > I get the error message Plot::optx: Unknown option newopt in > Plot[.....]. However, if I use a user-defined function with an > unknown option, I get no error message -- rather, the option is simply > ignored. > > Bob Lawrence