Re: new functional operator
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg125626] Re: new functional operator
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:52:12 -0500 (EST)
- Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
On 3/21/12 at 5:45 AM, noqsiaerospace at gmail.com (John Doty) wrote: >It isn't clutter in any specific piece of code that's the problem: >it's all the cluttered documentation. Many of us appreciated the >wonderful Mathematica book when it existed, but Mathematica has too >many unnecessary functions these days, The problem is defining "unnecessary". A function you seldom or never use might be one I use extensively. You would see this as unnecessary function but I would see it as an essential function. >For functions like the one we're discussing, it's much better to define >it only when needed. Then, those trying to understand code that >*doesn't* use that function (almost all Mathematica code ever written) >won't have to waste time looking past it in the documentation. True, if a function is defined at the time of use, the code should be more understandable. But this rather defeats the point of having compact notations you want to use often.