Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica > #1668 > unrolled thread

Re: concatenate matrices?

Back to article view | Back to comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Contents

  Re: concatenate matrices? Robert Rosenbaum <robertr@math.uh.edu> - 2011-04-14 09:00 +0000
    Re: concatenate matrices? "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2011-04-14 11:08 +0000
      Re: concatenate matrices? Helen Read <readhpr@gmail.com> - 2011-04-15 07:54 +0000

#1668 — Re: concatenate matrices?

DrMajorBob,

A little off topic, but I was wondering why you suggested the prefix notation
> Transpose@{y1, y2}
instead of
Transpose[{y1,y2}]

I've noticed other people doing the same on this mailing list, and sometimes suggesting postfix as well.  I would guess that Transpose[{y1,y2}] is more readily understood by most users.  Is there a reason that you and others often suggest the arguably less common prefix or postfix notations?


Best,
Robert


On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:56 AM, DrMajorBob wrote:

> Transpose@{y1, y2}
>
> Bobby
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 06:08:14 -0500, hadi motamedi <motamedi24@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear All
>> I have two column matrices named y1 & y2 with dimensions as 448000*1 .
>> Can you please let me know how to construct a new matrix say 'y' with
>> dimensions 448000*2 such that each column of it equals y1(or y2)?
>> Thank you
>>
>
>
> --
> DrMajorBob@yahoo.com
>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1675

On 4/14/2011 2:00 AM, Robert Rosenbaum wrote:
> DrMajorBob,
>
> A little off topic, but I was wondering why you suggested the prefix notation
>> Transpose@{y1, y2}
> instead of
> Transpose[{y1,y2}]
>
> I've noticed other people doing the same on this mailing list, and sometimes
>  suggesting postfix as well.  I would guess that Transpose[{y1,y2}] is more
>  readily understood by most users.  Is there a reason that you and others
>  often suggest the arguably less common prefix or postfix notations?
>

For me, sometimes I use @ for 3 main reasons:

1) If the expression has too many [[[[ ... ]]]], then using @ helps
eliminates a pair of [], making the expression easier to read.

2) typing foo@x has one less key stroke than foo[x]. So, when
my fingers are tired, I tend to use @ more ;)

3) For existing expression, if you wanted to insert a call
to a function 'foo' in the middle of it, then by writing

                .....foo@....

you do not have to worry about having to go look for where to
insert the second ']' at the other end, which will be in a place in
the middle of the expression as well.

            ...... foo[......]......

The editor can help with its highlighting the matching [], since you
first still need find the correct location to insert the right ]. In
a complicated expression, then can take bit more time.

Easier to just type foo@

As for the more easily understood part, this is all a matter of time.
With time, you'll find @ just as easy to look at as [...]


--Nasser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1702

On 4/14/2011 7:08 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> On 4/14/2011 2:00 AM, Robert Rosenbaum wrote:
>> DrMajorBob,
>>
>> A little off topic, but I was wondering why you suggested the prefix notation
>>> Transpose@{y1, y2}
>> instead of
>> Transpose[{y1,y2}]
>>
>> I've noticed other people doing the same on this mailing list, and sometimes
>>   suggesting postfix as well.  I would guess that Transpose[{y1,y2}] is more
>>   readily understood by most users.  Is there a reason that you and others
>>   often suggest the arguably less common prefix or postfix notations?
>>
>
> For me, sometimes I use @ for 3 main reasons:
>
> 1) If the expression has too many [[[[ ... ]]]], then using @ helps
> eliminates a pair of [], making the expression easier to read.

Personally I prefer the nested [ ] so I can see where everything begins 
and ends. I find the @ notation harder to read. Obviously YMMV.

> 2) typing foo@x has one less key stroke than foo[x]. So, when
> my fingers are tired, I tend to use @ more ;)

With @ you need to hit the Shift key, so it's not really a net gain.


> 3) For existing expression, if you wanted to insert a call
> to a function 'foo' in the middle of it, then by writing
>
>                  .....foo@....
>
> you do not have to worry about having to go look for where to
> insert the second ']' at the other end, which will be in a place in
> the middle of the expression as well.
>
>              ...... foo[......]......
>
> The editor can help with its highlighting the matching [], since you
> first still need find the correct location to insert the right ]. In
> a complicated expression, then can take bit more time.

I'm a big fan of Alt-]  to insert matching [ ] as you go.

-- 
Helen Read
University of Vermont

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

csiph-web