>> 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.
The difference is brevity. Don't doubt the capacity of effort to use
in changing usage patterns.
>> 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
Indeed!
--
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
