0

At present the description for reads:

Questions about the use and syntax of built-in Mathematica functions

Since virtually all questions fit that description I think I much better usage for the tag is for questions about writing Mathematica functions.

Please up-vote if you agree.

  • 1
    How does writing Mathematica functions differ from programming? – rcollyer Feb 14 '12 at 17:48
  • 1
    @rcollyer then consider the question: does the functions tag serve any purpose? (I think maybe writing functions is distinct enough from general programming to warrant a tag.) – Mr.Wizard Feb 14 '12 at 18:21
  • In mathematics everything is a function, so functions as tag sounds a bit redundant. Questions about syntax should probably go by the tag syntax. What's left then? Function arguments, function options, function attributes... Perhaps we can have some two-part tags? Function-xxxx or so? – Sjoerd C. de Vries Feb 14 '12 at 18:38
  • I agree with Sjoerd on this. Also, it seems to me, a number of the questions currently tagged with [function] might be better served with [functional-style] – Andy Ross Feb 14 '12 at 22:39
  • I do agree that the tag is useless at the moment, but I don't agree on that it should be about writing Mathematica functions. As all [functional-style], [syntax], [attributes] and [options] are already covered, I don't see any niche for [function] to fill up. I wonder though why isn't there any tag for pure functions, which are of course functions themselves, but are also very specific to Mathematica, are forming a rather distinct subgroup of functions and allow for nice and elegant code solutions. Are they considered part of the functional-style tag? I have zero more character to write. – István Zachar Feb 15 '12 at 23:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .