The suggestion says: "Questions on correct (or improved) formulation of Mathematica code to achieve a particular results. Use this tag (not "symbol") for questions about all those odd @@ /@ # and ~ symbols." (highlight by me)
I'm concerned about the highlighted bit. I think this is not what syntax usually means. Syntax is about how to put together some piece of program code so it can be interpreted by the system. If we forget about the funny operators for a moment, Mathematica syntax is as simple as funtction[arg1, arg2, ..., argn].
This is different from semantics, the actual meaning of the program code we enter. It is only about the program code being "grammatically correct", and not about it making any sense.
The current description suggests that syntax is appropriate for questions like this (please see), and it is in fact already being used on the site
I'd say syntax is not appropriate here, for example, because that post is about meaning and typical usage and not grammar.
So, to sum up, I am concerned that people with a programming or CS background will be confused by this usage of syntax. But then I don't have that background either, so I need some input from you. Please see above, <-- @Leonid @rcollyer @acl @yoda @Verbeia @DavidZaslavsky @Brett @magma @Sjoerd
Hi @Szabolcs. I actually just approved the suggestions of @Verbeia. I think we may make additional edits as we agree on what should be changed, but this seems like a good starting points. Please change if you disagree.
Actually, I think syntax is exactly about the "funny operators", since this is what syntax means to me. Mathematica code in FulForm has virtually no syntax, just as Lisp code. That said, I agree that "syntax" tag is not appropriate for either of the questions you linked to.
@Leonid I think there should be a tag with this function (i.e. for those "how to do this in a nicer way" questions which often get many replies with different ways of achieving the same thing, or even @David's question here ).
But I personally would not look for syntax when trying to find a tag for something like this. The question is: do others think the same way or is syntax a natural choice for others? I.e. it's just about the user-friendliness of the tag naming.
@Szabolcs I don't have a background in CS or programming, but I agree with Leonid, and you partly. I guess your primary concern is with the to achieve particular results part, which could imply that the asker can ask for alternate approaches. Perhaps rephrasing it to "Questions on formulating valid mathematica code". This definition does not require the result to actually be correct... just valid
@Szabolcs I just meant that I 1. Agree with @Verbeia for the formulation of the tag wiki for "syntax", at least as a starting point 2. Agree with you that it should not be used for things like "what's the function is doing", and "what other ways are there to code this" - type questions. OTOH, questions about say how many parameters function takes and what is their meaning is borderline syntax/semantics, so "syntax" tag may be appropriate
That said, this definition is perhaps a point that several people are bound to argue about, and we should find a common ground that everyone can sort of agree to
@Szabolcs until 2k in private beta or 4k in public, you can't edit tag wikis freely (equivalent to 20k in a graduated site)
Actually I got here by getting up, reading David's Unique-question, noticing syntax and finding it weird as used there, thinking a bit about what tag would be good for idiomatic usage / alternative approach questions (we definitely need a tag for that!), then going to the tag wiki for syntax and noticing that there are several items in the review queue
@yoda @Leonid OK, so I'd say we're done with syntax then :-) My next question: what tag do you suggest for idiomatic usage / alternative approach / how to do this better questions ?
@Szabolcs Regarding your suggestion on graphs-and-networks tag: don't you think mentioning version 8 is a bit too specific. I'd think Combinatorica-related questions are also on topic for this tag?
@Szabolcs :) The reason I think a separate tag should be avoided is because a new user could easily use that tag for anything that they want the "best" way of doing...
@Leonid OK, I'll remove the mention of v8, you're right (actually I just wanted to remove the mention of v6). About using this tag for any Combinatorica question, I seemed to recall that a big part of Combinatorica is not about graphs. But looking at the doc-page I see that only the first two sections are not about graphs, the rest are: reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/Combinatorica/guide/…
it's always the answers that determine what's best practices, etc and not the question... So I think we should try to phrase questions in a way that it doesn't ask for the "best practice" outright, but for what to keep in mind or common pitfalls etc when doing X (where X is a general enough topic), and once it has been answered, it should be linked to from the respective tag wiki
For example, with the recent question on writing a package – you wouldn't want to search for that among lots of questions tagged "best-practice"... rather, it would be easier to look in the tag wiki. Now, it's an entirely different question if users look at tag wikis, but I do know that there are changes to the layout and stuff planned for tag wikis, so we shouldn't neglect it
The only concern is arguments about what is idiomatic and what is not, which I very much want to avoid. I'd like people to post many solutions, but not argue about which one is "better"
@Szabolcs that is always a problem. Perhaps, even an argument against having that tag, on second thoughts... that's a beef I have with questions asking for "most elegant" way of doing it... elegance is usually in the eyes of the beholder
Yep. Let's put this aside for a while, and come back to it when we have a good number of example questions to discuss.
Yep, it is also more general. What I'm thinking about when I read idioms is fixed constructs used repeatedly, but also non-obvious tricks like point evaluation
@JM like this one: Hold[1+1,2*2] /. expr_Plus :> Block[ {}, expr /; True]
Need to eat something, then "go to school", see how's my computation doing on the server :) @JM I also saved the crossings function on the university machine, couldn't look at it at home. See you all later!
All, I've been trying to construct tag wiki first-drafts as I get time (since I often am unable to answer questions adequately or in the right timezone)
Currently, one may save notebooks as PDFs from the menu by Save As... and then selecting PDF (on a Mac, I imagine it is similar on other OSs). However, the resulting PDF does not have preserve the syntax highlighting of the code, even though things like plots are coloured. Printing to a PDF has t...
Hi all. I'm Jin, and I'll be working on the designs for the Stack Exchange sites as they graduate from the beta phase. Each site will have its own unique theme that will reflect its topic. However, all sites will share quite a bit of common elements so they feel like they're part of the Stack Exc...
We discussed about several tags in chat. Perhaps there should be a central list on meta, saying that we decided that graphics3d -> graphics, evaluation-control -> evaluation, etc. That means that everyone could go there and check what's going on and object if they think something is not right. While if there are no objections for a day or so, then we can safely go ahead and do the tag changes
I was thinking @acl's question should be tagged print, or printout since that is what it is. It is not an export but a print to PDF using the operating system.
Szabolcs has suggested that we have a central place to note all our decisions about what questions should be tagged with which tag.
For example, we have decided that:
for graphics (see also here) that the graphics tag applied wherever the user was going beyond the built-in visualisation comma...
The mathematica.SE is currently in private beta and will open to the public in a few days. Stack Overflow and related sites use prettify.js, however Mathematica is not a supported language. It would be pretty awesome to have a custom highlighting script for our site, and I request the JavaScript ...
@MikeHoneychurch I tried both the OS "Print" dialog and mma's "Save as..." menu item. So, I did not think of print as a tag. export is also somewhat unsatisfactory though. still, I don't feel strongly either way
@MikeHoneychurch ah, should have first read both your comments!
Szabolcs has suggested that we have a central place to note all our decisions about what questions should be tagged with which tag.
For example, we have decided that:
for graphics (see also here) that the graphics tag applied wherever the user was going beyond the built-in visualisation comma...
