Skip to main content
Mathematica

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • $\begingroup$ You'll probably need to redefine Set[] .Not a wise thing to do. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2014 at 12:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'll never understand the need for this. Just look at your example. Looks pretty redundant to me. Anyway, $Post may be useful here. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2014 at 20:56
  • $\begingroup$ I have marked this question as "already answered" -- please review the original and tell me if you feel your question is not answered satisfactorily there. (I will reopen this one if that is the case.) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2014 at 23:36
  • $\begingroup$ Related: (1047), (11961), (17121) $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 13, 2014 at 23:36
  • $\begingroup$ @SjoerdC.deVries: the example was artificially simplified; as people have pointed out, I often have extended Mathematica sheets with many calculations in a single cell. It becomes difficult to differentiate the output without resorting to counting the number of lines manually. In order to make the output clear, you would either resort to fashioning a Print command or creating new cells, neither of which are always good solutions. I want to be able to see the output clearly. Why would that not be useful? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 14, 2014 at 0:17