Skip to main content

guidelines - Package organization


When writing a Mathematica package Foo, with functions f1, f2 and f3, one can use the template:


BeginPackage["Foo`"];

f1::usage = "f1[] ....";


f2::usage = "f2[] ....";

Begin["`Private`"];

f1[]:= code for f1

f2[]:= code for f2

f3[]:= code for f3 (not visible as only in the private context)


End[];

EndPackage[];

What I do not like is when your package is growing, there can be a long "distance" (not fitting in your text editor) between "f1::usage" and the actual f1 code. This is error prone concerning coherence between doc and code. So I would like to group common stuff together.


My question is:


Is it possible and is it a good practice (without side effect) to group things like below?


BeginPackage["Foo`"];


Begin["`Private`"];

Foo`f1::usage = "f1[] ....";

Foo`f1[]:= code for f1

...

Foo`f2::usage = "f2[] ....";


Foo`f2[]:= code for f2

...

f3[]:= code for f3 (private as before)

End[]

EndPackage[];

Answer




The key point is not to set the usage message between BeginPackage and Begin["`Private`"], but just to mention the symbol.


A better way to do this would be:


BeginPackage["Foo`"];

f1
f2

Begin["`Private`"];

f1::usage = "f1[] ....";

f1[]:= code for f1

f2::usage = "f2[] ....";
f2[]:= code for f2

f3[]:= code for f3 (not visible as only in the private context)

End[];

EndPackage[];


Whatever you mention there will be a public symbol (f1, f2). What you don't mention will not be public (f3). That's because after the BeginPackage, $Context will be Foo`, meaning that new symbols are created there. $Context controls where new symbols are created. After the Begin["`Private`"], $Context is changed, but Foo` is still in $ContextPath. $ContextPath controls where Mathematica should look for symbol names. It only creates a new symbol if it didn't find the name in $ContextPath.


You could use the explicit context for every definition, but personally I don't like this because it keeps repeating the name of the context, thus making it difficult to change in the future. It is also good to point out that you'd only need to use an explicit context when mentioning the symbol for the first time. I.e. this would be sufficient (though potentially confusing):


Foo`f1::usage = "f1[] ....";

f1[]:= code for f1

It is good practice to use different naming conventions for public and non-public symbols. Public ones are preferably capitalized. This will also help in catching errors such as not making a symbol public.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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