MathGroup Archive 2013

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Mathematica and Lisp

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg120020] Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • From: David Bailey <dave at>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 04:18:45 -0500 (EST)
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • Delivered-to:
  • References: <kgse4s$jam$> <> <> <kh163q$sa3$>

On 04/03/2013 03:57, Richard Fateman wrote:

> ? @@@
> returns Information::nomatch
Well it would - the ? operator works on function names, not their 
operator equivalents.
> To use your method I must remove at least one hand from the keyboard,
> scramble around to find
>    the mouse and then hit f1 and then return my hand to the keyboard in
> order to  get the documentation.

Hmm - that sounds like a lot of work!
> As for @@@ being explained multiple times in this newsgroup, maybe you
> should wonder why
> (a) it should have to be explained even once

Well I guess if everyone read and understood the entire documentation 
before posting on the newsgroup, 90% of the threads would vanish - but 
that would be true of just about all software support newsgroups.

> (b) why it should have to be explained multiple times.

Probably because people don't scan the entire back history of posts, 
before asking their question!
> Maybe it is not the most useful operation?  Maybe it is not the most
> euphonious operator?

I do think Mathematica could usefully exploit more extended characters 
as synonyms for operators like @@@ - just as they do for :> etc.

It is important to realise that anyone can understand any expression 
involving operators by using Hold and FullForm:

(f @@@ g) // Hold // FullForm


David Bailey

  • Prev by Date: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • Next by Date: Import of URL no longer works in V9
  • Previous by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp
  • Next by thread: Re: Mathematica and Lisp