Christopher Olah wrote:
> I think that having a way to make anonymous functions is very
> important. While, as someone relatively new to sage, I haven't used in
> sage, I use it all the time in math (For example, my prefered
> definition of the Mandlebrot set is {x|x ∊ ℂ; lim_(n->∞)
> (λz:z^2+x)ⁿ(0)≠∞} )...
>
> I quite like the idea of using "|->" but some other possibilities are:
> - 'l' instead of the full lambda...
> - or some other substring of lambda like "la", "lam", etc...
Neither of these possibilities get any closer to mathematical notation.
The difference I see between lam x: x^2 and lambda x:x^2 is that I
have to explain to everyone what "lam" means, whereas a lot of people
(with CS backgrounds) will already know what sorts of things "lambda"
deals with.
>
> Another possibility, though I suspect just about everyone will scream
> at me for it, and even I'm not sure I like it... is using unicode (ie
> λ x : ...).
Yep, unicode is right out. I can't wait for Fortress to come out,
though! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_%28programming_language%29
Thanks,
Jason
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
