Skip to main content

functions - Strange behavior with Cases and Position with SetDelayed


I feel like I must be missing something simple and obvious here, but this has me scratching my head.



This works as expected:


list = {f[a], f[b]};
Cases[list, f[x_] :> x] -> Position[list, f[_]]

(* {a, b} -> {{1}, {2}} *)

However, this does not:


fun[list_] := Cases[list, f[x_] :> x] -> Position[list, f[_]];
fun[list]


(* {x, x} -> {{1}, {2}} *)

Is this a bug, or have I just not had enough coffee today?



Answer



What's happening


This is not simple by any means. You have encountered another instance of a general situation with lexical scope leaks / emulation / over-protection by symbol renaming. The case at hand is pretty similar to the one discussed here, so you can read the detailed explanation of this behavior in my answer there.


Roughly speaking, outer lexical scoping constructs (RuleDelayed in the linked dicsussion, and its analog for implicit global rule application here), try to protect the inner bindings from destructive changes, but mis-interpret their pieces and instead destroy yet inner bindings in the process. We have to fool that mechanism somehow, to avoid that.


Workarounds


The "StrictLexicalScoping" system option


Thanks to the hard work of Daniel Lichtblau, we now have a system option named "StrictLexicalScoping", which, when set to True, fixes many such cases, including the one at hand. You have to execute this:



SetSystemOptions["StrictLexicalScoping" -> True]

before you enter the definition of your function, and then it will work as intended.


Fooling the protection mechanism explicitly


In your case, here is one possible such work-around that is reasonably clean:


fun[list_] := 
   With[{rule = Rule}, 
      rule[Cases[list, f[x_] :> x], Position[list, f[_]]]
   ];


There are many more variations of it. What really matters is that SetDelayed and then the internal rule application engine (internal analog of RuleDelayed for global rules) don't see external Rule during the rule application.


This is surely not something that would first come to mind, though :)


Additional references


Here are a few additional links relevant to this discussion



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
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