Reputation
1,460
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
4 17
Impact
~10k people reached

2d
asked Can Predict/Classify be parallelized?
Aug
13
comment What's in a Name?
@Mr.Wizard beat me to this exact point by seconds - yes better to let this one go through to the keeper
Aug
13
comment What's in a Name?
Well I suppose the Part in StringPart has different semantics (actual structure) from the Part in ReplacePart (position in structure) which allows their similar form even with different meanings. Of course, as pointed out by @ciao and @Jens no such issue arises while working in an alternative context since the analogous ExperimentalMindalteringDrugsTrumpYoureFired` and ExperimentalMindalteringDrugsTrumpStringYoureFired` have less conflict.
Aug
13
revised What's in a Name?
added 5 characters in body
Aug
13
revised What's in a Name?
deleted 6 characters in body
Aug
13
comment What's in a Name?
@ciao Possibly, but yes suspect a closure is on the cards. Think there is a useful question lurking in there but oh well
Aug
13
comment What naming conventions are used for functions?
I think this is a great question and would vote to re-open it. Understanding the logic and principles that have gone into System names can IMO be of great assistance in being able to correctly guess a new/recalled function but also in designing your code. Perhaps it could be narrowed down to a request for some small set of principles used in such naming?
Aug
13
asked What's in a Name?
Aug
11
awarded  Nice Question
Aug
11
revised Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
edited title
Aug
11
answered Shorter shorthand for StringJoin[]?
Aug
11
comment Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
Yes history has a narky habit of getting in the way but (having not noticed that overloading of Set before) @= at least offers a way towards a subsequent separation ... of sorts.
Aug
11
revised Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
deleted 2 characters in body
Aug
11
revised Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
edited title
Aug
11
comment Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
assoc = <|a -> 1|>; assoc[b] = 2; assoc giving <|a -> 1, b -> 2|> with this and other semantics being extended to Lists, Datasets and [[]] to reach said generality. Longer explanation given in self-answer.
Aug
11
answered Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
Aug
10
accepted Is Package development (via InitializationCells) compatible with creating new Notations (via MakeExpressions)?
Aug
7
comment Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
Set however, can also be used for part creations which is why I don't agree that the "semantics of Unset is generally undefined". The coherency stems from Unset undoing what a Set does either in symbol/rule or part creation - (that Set can also be used to modify symbols/parts doesn't affect this inverse relationship instead being a byproduct of a natural setting/modifying nexus). But yes easy to get into loops here and I might self-answer later to try and save this question from too much triviality :)
Aug
6
revised Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
edited body
Aug
6
comment Different Set Semantics - Why is assoc[“a”] =. different from assoc[[“a”]] =.?
... include an infix form and be natural (all of which I do) then I see no other alternative but to use "=" . Maybe there could be another "=" symbol or instead have it parsed to SetPart, or perhaps SetAt for non-symbol arguments but both seem to add unnecessary complexity without an overwhelming gain in language purity.