Re: Pure Functions in rules
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg16003] Re: Pure Functions in rules
- From: tburton at brahea.com (Tom Burton)
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:27:14 -0500
- Organization: Brahea, Inc.
- References: <7ag34l$aie@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Will,
Suggest using delayed evaluation (:>) of rule's RHS when that RHS
depends on a symbol (m here) introduced on the LHS.
Don't blame pure functions; blame Map. Any function mapped onto an
undefined symbol returns that symbol. When you use "->" instead of ":>".
you allow the function to operate before m is defined. That's why you
get "{1,2,3}".
Tom
In[208]:= {1, 2, 3} /. m_List :> (2*#1 & ) /@ m
Out[208]= {2, 4, 6}
On 17 Feb 1999 22:58:13 -0500, in comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica you
wrote:
>It appears that I cannot depend on using a pure function
>in a pattern-matching rule.
>...
>
>In[79]:= {1,2,3}/.m_List->f[m]
>Out[79]= {2,4,6}
>
>Now try this:
>
>In[80]:= {1,2,3}/.(m_List->(2*#& /@ m))
>Out[80]= {1,2,3}
>
>Does anyone (say, at WRI for example) care to comment on
>this?
>
>Will Self
Tom Burton