Timeline for Using Through with SlotSequence
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:55 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ with https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 13:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMma/status/620589619814494208 | ||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:32 | history | reopened | bbgodfrey Mr.Wizard | ||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:26 | vote | accept | Myridium | ||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:20 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Is my answer in its current form a solution in that case or are there other issues? If there are please make them apparent. I look forward to your (final?) update. :-) | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:17 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 12 characters in body |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:15 | comment | added | Myridium | @Mr.Wizard Ah, thank you, you have brought to my attention some technical ambiguities that I didn't realize were there! I can see some of the issues now, and in this light I will narrow the scope of my question to only pure functions. | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:00 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Myridium Also, functions can have different evaluation rules for symbolic or numeric arguments. Therefore the class of functions that you wish to operate upon needs to be clearly specified rather than assumed and changing with each update. | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 5:58 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Myridium I apologize if I appear uncooperative but that is not my intent. However there is no universal and robust way to determine the number of arguments of a function (referencing (7040) and (56665)). One then wonders what compromise you would find acceptable? Your current example uses ArcTan, a function that has both one and two parameter forms. You must explain how such problems are to be handled if this question is to be answerable. (continued) | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:55 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 1 character in body |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:33 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 6:33 | |||||
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:29 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Rewrote to clarify |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:16 | comment | added | Myridium | @Mr.Wizard I've tried to condense and focus the question, please let me know if there's more I can do. | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 4:16 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Rewrote to clarify |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 3:06 | comment | added | ciao | Through[(Derivative[1] + (# &))[#1]]... think about it... | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 1:49 | history | closed | Mr.Wizard | Needs details or clarity | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 1:49 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | You have now introduced Derivative in your examples. Is this the only other expression that yo wish to treat like a function or are you going to add another one as soon as answers are updated to handle Derivative? Also # & + Derivative[1] and Derivative[1] + # & are surely different as the first one is (# &) + Derivative[1] whereas the second is (Derivative[1] + #) &. I think your question is not well specified at present as it is not clear what extent of heads you expect to be handled. I am going to put this on hold until you can provide an exhaustive specification. | |
| Jul 13, 2015 at 0:36 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added new example; elaborated |
| Jul 12, 2015 at 8:37 | answer | added | ciao | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 12, 2015 at 7:09 | answer | added | Mr.Wizard | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 12, 2015 at 7:01 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | Related: (28056), (28064), (48786), (56665), (63747), (87464) | |
| Jul 12, 2015 at 5:48 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 56 characters in body |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 20:55 | answer | added | user8074 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 14:35 | answer | added | Dr. belisarius | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 14:01 | history | edited | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 528 characters in body |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 13:50 | answer | added | John McGee | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 13:30 | comment | added | Myridium | @JohnMcGee - I would expect expr to end up with five slots. f would take its fill from the first 3, g from the first 2, and h from all of them. In other words, I would want the equivalent of expr = Through[(f+g+h)[#1,#2,#3,#4,#5]]. | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 13:25 | comment | added | John McGee | Suppose that when you use expr, that f expects 3 arguments, g expects 2 and h expects 5, how would you plan to invoke expr? | |
| Jul 11, 2015 at 13:11 | history | asked | Myridium | CC BY-SA 3.0 |