12:16 AM
Up through V11.0, `Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, 2 Pi}] === Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, 2 Pi}]` and the difference of the two sides was `0`. As of V11.1, there's an `Annotation` on the `Line`, `"Charting`Private`Tag\$24116#1"`, so no two plots will be identical.
3

12:30 AM
@MichaelE2 Yes. I did a bit of debugging on how ticks are created and handled and I saw this too.

4 hours later…
4:33 AM
is there any way to have some variables defined using `Table` depend on others? in particular, I would like `Table[f[F, mf], {F, {0,1}}, {mF, -F, F}]` to evaluate to `{f[0,0], f[1,-1], f[1,0], f[1, 1], f[2,-2], f[2,-1], f[2,0], f[2,1], f[2,2]}`

5:31 AM
@JulianWolf I bet there's a better way but I use a Table within a Table and a Flatten[_,1]

4 hours later…
9:07 AM
tfw I transform my For loop to a Select and the run time goes down from 27 seconds to just 0.4

1 hour later…
10:13 AM
Why the first one is `False`?
```MatchQ[{1}, Optional[{__Integer}, {2}]]
MatchQ[{1}, Optional[{_Integer}, {2}]]
MatchQ[{1}, {_Integer}]```

10:25 AM
@JulianWolf Why don't you try this without your typo?

10:46 AM
@Kuba No, not really. Outside of `MatchQ` in a real definition it seems to work though

10:56 AM
@halirutan ok, posted a question
0

Why isn't the first one False in: MatchQ[{1}, Optional[{__Integer}, {2}]] MatchQ[{1}, Optional[{_Integer}, {2}]] MatchQ[{1}, {__Integer}] or: MatchQ[{1}, p : {__Integer} : {2}] MatchQ[{1}, p : {_Integer} : {2}] MatchQ[{1}, p : {__Integer}] p:v is a pattern object that represents an expre...

@Kuba You got my upvote. Maybe @WReach can say something about this. AFAIK, besides being a god with `Query` he knows a good deal about patterns as well.

@halirutan I wonder if there will be a point in time when I won't be surprised by results anymore

@Kuba Patterns are infintely hard to implement and Mathematica cannot make it right in all cases. I'm sure you never reach the point where nothing surprises you. Maybe `Optional` is a cornercase for `MatchQ`. The inability to trace in depth what happens makes it even harder.

@halirutan I could reduce my wish to "be able to predict that something may fail" but I don't have high hopes for that either

@Kuba For me, `Optional` in this context does not really makes sense. I see it more as a function that injects an argument if it is missing. One could argue that it should use the contained pattern inside `MatchQ` but that would add confusion as well.

11:10 AM
@halirutan For me it is useless/redundant but makes sense. It should represent a pattern unless I missed the point in docs.

@Kuba Yes and I see that as well. The docs suggest that it is seen as a pattern.

13 hours later…
11:56 PM
In beta: Wolfram University. Video tutorials, a 'scratchpad' and supporting text alongside. Impressive see example