Maybe I missed something, but why are we tending toward adopting the
"i, i1..i2" range notation as opposed to "[i,i1,i2]", which, as far as I
know, is used in lots of places in Maxima?
Kostas
Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 4/9/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to unify the two as follows:
>>
>> makelist(expr, i, ilist, j, jlist, ...)
>> == makelist(expr, i, i0..i1, j, j0..j1, ...)
>
> OK.
>
>> The multiple arguments to map have completely different semantics:
>>
>> map(f,[1,2],[3,4]) => [ f(1,3), f(2,4) ]
>> create_list(f(a,b),a,[1,2],b,[3,4]) => [f(1, 3), f(1, 4), f(2,
>> 3), f(2, 4)]
>
> I guess that makes create_list redundant with cartesian_product
> or maybe outermap in the multiple argument case (not map).
>
> But now I'm wondering --- is makelist w/ multiple arguments
> supposed to be like map or like cartesian_product or outermap?
> Or something else?
>
>> Because (a) two dots for an integer range is established notation in
>> many languages (Pascal, Ada, Perl, Ruby, Maple); and (b) three dots is
>> generally used to mean something else both in mathematics and in
>> Maxima.
>
> OK I guess. Not a big deal.
>
> FWIW
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima