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*

3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think we need more coverage of data structures/objects, to which I count the formatting of arguments: Do you use an option, a positional argument, a list of a certain structure - as used by the built-in commands for say level specifications, range specifications, position specifications (list of positive integers). Also, we need to talk about object oriented programming. The builtin commands do f[object, args], but e.g. JavaLink uses obj@method[args] (which I think is a bit contrived). $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 2, 2016 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ Agree with structure/objects naming. "use verbs for symbols used as functions, nouns for symbols used as variables" is too limiting. Mathematica itself uses nouns as List, Association, Cases. Would welcome a more expanded version of the quote above. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 24 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ @PaulCommentary: it is not very clear from the actual text, but that sentence was more though as an example of a potential convention that a group of users could agree on -- even if it differs from the conventions Mathematica itself uses. Of course any such convention is limiting in some ways and can not address every potential use case of symbols. And you might always find specific cases that are not clearly handled by any convention... $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23 at 8:45