I will stick my oar in here as a user to say that I find the \(x) syntax a bit
line-noise-ish.
David
> On 8 Dec 2020, at 00:05, Abby Spurdle wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should replace "cryptic-ness" from my last post, with
> "unnecessary cryptic-ness".
> Sometimes short symbolic expressions are nece
Sorry, I should replace "cryptic-ness" from my last post, with
"unnecessary cryptic-ness".
Sometimes short symbolic expressions are necessary.
P.S.
Often, I wish I could write: f (x) = x^2.
But that's replacement function syntax.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 11:56 AM Abby Spurdle wrote:
>
> I mostly
I mostly agree with your comments on anonymous functions.
However, I think the main problem is cryptic-ness, rather than succinct-ness.
The backslash is a relatively universal symbol within programming
languages with C-like (ALGOL-like?) syntax.
Where it denotes escape sequences within strings.
U
It is easier to understand a function if you can see the entire
function body at once on a page or screen and excessive verbosity
interferes with that.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel
wrote:
>
> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. I
Thanks for expressing this eloquently. I heartily agree.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 12:04 PM Therneau, Terry M., Ph.D. via R-devel <
r-devel@r-project.org> wrote:
> “The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be
> helpful in making
> code containing simple function expressio
“The shorthand form \(x) x + 1 is parsed as function(x) x + 1. It may be helpful in making
code containing simple function expressions more readable.”
Color me unimpressed.
Over the decades I've seen several "who can write the shortest code" threads: in Fortran,
in C, in Splus, ... The same o
