Skip to main content

programming - Checking the argument of user-defined function with side-effect method


Today, I answered a question of mine that asked two month ago. Please see here


Now I would like to add the argument checking in this function. Then I used a method that Mr.Wizard answered


Requirement for the arguments of Bernstein[n,i,u]



  • n must be a integer like $1,2,3,...$;

  • i must be a integer like $1,2,3,...$;

  • i should between 0 and n-1.



For instance, the built-in BernsteinBasis gives the warning information as below:


BernsteinBasis[1.2, 2, 3]


BernsteinBasis::intnm: Non-negative machine-sized integer expected at position 1 in BernsteinBasis[1.2,2,3]. >>



BernsteinBasis[1.2, 2.1, 3]



BernsteinBasis::intnm: Non-negative machine-sized integer expected at position 1 in BernsteinBasis[1.2,2.1,3]. >>


BernsteinBasis::intnm: Non-negative machine-sized integer expected at position 2 in BernsteinBasis[1.2,2.1,3]. >>



BernsteinBasis[4, 5, u]


BernsteinBasis::invidx2:Index 5 should be a machine-sized integer between 0 and 4. >>



checkArgs


Attributes[checkArgs] = {HoldAll};

(*check the number of arguments*)
checkArgs [func_[args___]] /; Length@{args} != 3 := 
  Message[func::argrx, func, Length@{args}, 3]

(*check the type of the first arguments*)
checkArgs [func_[a_, b_, c_]] /; ! MatchQ[a, _Integer?NonNegative] := 
  Message[func::intnm, func[a, b, c], 1]

(*check the type of second arguments*)
checkArgs [func_[a_, b_, c_]] /; ! MatchQ[b, _Integer?NonNegative] := 

  Message[func::intnm, func[a, b, c], 2]

checkArgs[func_[a_, b_, c_]] /; ! (0 <= b <= a - 1) := 
  Message[func::invidx, b, 0, a - 1]

(*other valid cases*)
checkArgs[other_] := True

Main implementation


Bernstein::invidx = 

 "The index `1` should be a non-negative machine-sized integer betwwen `2` and `3`.";

 SetAttributes[Bernstein, {Listable, NHoldAll, NumericFunction}]
(*special cases*)

Bernstein[n_, i_, u_]?checkArgs /; i < 0 || i > n := 0

Bernstein[0, 0, u_]?checkArgs := 1

Bernstein[n_, i_, u_?NumericQ]?checkArgs := 

 Binomial[n, i] u^i (1 - u)^(n - i)

(*expansion of the basis of Bernstein*)
Bernstein /: PiecewiseExpand[Bernstein[n_, i_, u_]] := 
 Piecewise[
  {{Binomial[n, i] u^i (1 - u)^(n - i), 0 <= u <= 1}, 
   {0, u > 1 || u < 0}}]

(*the derivatives of the basis of Bernstein*)
Bernstein /: Derivative[0, 0, k_Integer?Positive][Bernstein] := 

 Function[{n, i, u}, 
  D[
   n (Bernstein[n - 1, i - 1, u] - Bernstein[n - 1, i, u]), 
   {u, k - 1}]
 ]

However, it gives the following information.



$RecursionLimit::reclim: Recursion depth of 256 exceeded. >>


$RecursionLimit::reclim: Recursion depth of 256 exceeded. >>



$RecursionLimit::reclim: Recursion depth of 256 exceeded. >>


General::stop: Further output of $RecursionLimit::reclim will be suppressed during this calculation. >>


Bernstein::intnm: Non-negative machine-sized integer expected at position >Bernstein[n_,i_,u_] in 1. >>




Update


Thanks for Mr.Wizard's revision that adding HoldForm in checkArgs to remove the recursion.


In addition, Mr.Wizard given me a hint that ultilizing the Message as a side-effect in the comment


Now I have a reference here


SyntaxInformation[f] = {"ArgumentsPattern" -> {_}};

f[1] := True
f[_] := False
f[x___] /; Message[f::argx, "f", Length@{x}] := Null

Additional, The Toad has a comment as below:



I just remembered why I don't use this in my packages... if you have different messages being thrown based on the form of the input (as I often have), then throwing messages as a side-effect of not matching the form will result in all messages being thrown



However, this demo just for one argument, and when the number of argument greater than $1$, I have any idea to deal with Message with side-effect.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.
Post a Comment
Read more