Re: Pure Functions in rules
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg15981] Re: Pure Functions in rules
- From: David Reiss <David_B_Reiss_NoSpam at res.raytheon.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 03:27:02 -0500
- Organization: Raytheon Company
- References: <7ag34l$aie@smc.vnet.net>
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Will,
This has to do with delayed versus immediate replacement.
In[1]:=
{1,2,3}/.(m_List->(2*#& /@ m))
Out[1]=
{1,2,3}
In[2]:=
{1,2,3}/.(m_List:>(2*#& /@ m))
Out[2]=
{2,4,6}
For In[1] above, the right hand side or the replacement rule ((2*#& /@
m))
is evaluated before the rule is applied the result of evaluating (2*#&
/@ m) is
just m, so {1,2,3}/.(m_List->(2*#& /@ m)) is equivilant to
{1,2,3}/.(m_List-> m)
as long as m hasn't been defined previously in the Mathematica session.
These are the same issues as arise for "=" versus ":="
In In[2] I use RuleDelayed and the result that you expect is obtained
since the right hand side is not evaluated prior to the execution of the
rule.
Cheers,
David
Will Self wrote:
> It appears that I cannot depend on using a pure function
> in a pattern-matching rule.
>
> Here I am trying to convince reluctant students that they're
> better off learning to use Mathematica than doing things
> by hand, and we run across something like this, and in a
> much more complicated situation where the trouble was
> hard to isolate.
>
> I am quite frankly incensed by the behavior shown in
> In/Out 80, below. Look at these examples:
>
> In[73]:= {1,2,3}/.(m_List->7)
> Out[73]= 7
>
> In[74]:= {1,2,3}/.(m_List->(2*m))
> Out[74]= {2,4,6}
>
> In[75]:= 2*#& /@ {1,2,3}
> Out[75]= {2,4,6}
>
> In[77]:= f[m_List]:=2*#& /@ m
>
> In[78]:= f[{1,2,3}]
> Out[78]= {2,4,6}
>
> 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