492 reputation
110
bio website twitter.com/akater
location Moscow, Russia
age 27
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Apr 8 at 7:43

e-mail:

Uncompress["1:eJxTTMoPChZjYGDIK03OSU0sKi5ITE51SM9NzMzRS87PBQCWSwpb"]


Apr
7
comment Set-generating macro unexpectedly reaches recursion limit
@LeonidShifrin Thank you! No, I didn't think of Mma as of purely immutable. User actually has almost complete control over the core state, and that's why I expected it to be as inert in the absense of user as possible. Given this commentary of yours, I don't want to delete the question anymore. :-) So yes, let's wait.
Apr
7
comment Set-generating macro unexpectedly reaches recursion limit
@rm-rf Thanks. “It [Set] could have been already overloaded internally for certain purposes.” — Ah, I see. That is something I had not thought about, and it could explain a lot. (This would be the first big disappointment in the core language for me, though.) I'm ready to delete this Q.
Apr
7
comment Set-generating macro unexpectedly reaches recursion limit
@LeonidShifrin Set is a pure side-effect, a modification of environment. So, I'd say that, on the contrary, blocking it of all things should not affect anything at all, unless the environment is modified with it internally on a regular basis… but it goes contrary to everything I know about Mma, to be honest. If you say rules do get rewritten routinely under the hood I'll just accept it, sure, and delete the question if needed. But it's definitely not clear why blocking Set is a bad idea unless someone with insider knowledge just postulates this.
Apr
7
asked Set-generating macro unexpectedly reaches recursion limit
Mar
8
accepted Custom highlighting in definitions
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
@JacobAkkerboom 1. Yes, I also suspected halirutan to be interested in this Q&A. :-) 2. Evaluation of SetDelayed's LHS is probably just not explored properly yet, mainly because pattern generation seems to be somewhat discouraged by the environment, IMO.
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
@halirutan In case the question was addressed to me: I consider wrong highlighting in Function[, #^2, {Listable}] tolerable, mainly because dash # is a “universal” dummy variable. But I really want to see arbitrary localized symbols marked properly.
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
@JacobAkkerboom I was checking if the expression is a linear form. Both generators and coefficients are specified as patterns, so it's possible to check if the expression is a linear form w.r.t. f@_ with coefficients matching _Integer | _Rational, for example
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
I guess I found that out myself but it's not really counter-intuitive. There is no real reason to restrict such pattern generation. This is definitely not the first time I place a Quiet to mute a warning of this kind. Maybe I'll post an example of how it could be useful. (If the description won't turn out to be bloated.)
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
…and I think it's even possible to manage Blank vs BlankSeqeunce behaviour automatically, so there are no drawbacks, after all.
Mar
4
comment Custom highlighting in definitions
Oh yes, it's certainly a satisfying solution. I'll accept if no alternatives show up, thank you. Unfortunately myCustomPattern@localNameForTerms_ would then generate a pattern with localNameForTerms standing for BlankSequence while the mark-up corresponds to Blank, but that seems to be a relatively minor drawback.
Mar
4
revised Custom highlighting in definitions
More appropriate tags
Mar
4
asked Custom highlighting in definitions
Feb
14
awarded  Revival
Feb
14
revised Proving inequalities with Mathematica
added 10 characters in body
Feb
14
answered Proving inequalities with Mathematica
Feb
13
revised Fastest way to check if an expression contains all symbols from a list
added 207 characters in body
Feb
13
comment Fastest way to check if an expression contains all symbols from a list
@YiWang My fault. I didn't check my data set as well, so I erroneously concluded it was faster. :-) Still, I think it's worth to be posted, mostly for the sake of And[False, …] trick.
Feb
13
revised Fastest way to check if an expression contains all symbols from a list
added 15 characters in body; added 117 characters in body
Feb
13
revised Fastest way to check if an expression contains all symbols from a list
added 15 characters in body; added 117 characters in body