On 3/4/2013 7:34 AM, Murray Eisenberg wrote: > On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:58 PM, Richard Fateman <email@example.com> wrote: > >> On 3/3/2013 5:57 AM, Bob Hanlon wrote: >>> "@@@ ?" >>> >>> The operator @@@ has been used and explained multiple times on this >>> newsgroup and is documented in the Mathematica help. >> /I'm a touch typist. >> So I'm happy with examples like this --- >> >> ? Apply >> which works >> >> But >> >> ? @@@ >> >> returns Information::nomatch >> >> To use your method I must remove at least one hand from the keyboard, >> scramble around to find >> the mouse and then hit f1 and then return my hand to the keyboard in >> order to get the documentation. > Aww -- such hardship! Some people prefer better user interfaces to poorer user interfaces. Some people like central heating. Some people like to chop wood and feed a stove. There is no accounting for tastes. > So much that I can barely understand why you'd even bother to use Mathematica -- except possible for the singular purpose of burdening this group with your many posts that don't actually help anybody to use Mathematica and don't make viable suggestions on how WRI might improve the product. I think it is a perfectly valid suggestion to Wolfram that ? @@@
should work to produce documentation on @@@
If you think that there is a good reason to not do this, other than "oh, that would require some fixin' " or "It isn't supposed to do that." then I'd be curious to hear it.
Generally when I find a bug in Mathematica I report it to Wolfram. I try not to burden this group with mere bug reports -- after all, the vast majority of the readers are in no way responsible for the bugs and are not in a position to fix them. Occasionally a bug is amusing enough to report here.
Occasionally WRI makes changes in Mathematica that correspond to suggestions that I've made. Perhaps coincidence.
The fact that I occasionally mock Mathematica and Wolfram doesn't meant there is no content.