Skip to main content

programming - The clearest way to represent Mathematica's evaluation sequence


WReach has presented here a nice way to represent the Mathematica's evaluation sequence using OpenerView. It is much more clear way to go than using the standard Trace or TracePrint commands. But it could be improved further.


I need straightforward way to represent the real sequence of (sub)evaluations inside Mathematica's main loop for beginners. In particular, it should be obvious when new evaluation subsequence begins and from which expression (it is better to have each subsequence exactly in one Opener). The evaluation (sub)sequence should be identified as easily as possible with the standard evaluation sequence. I mean that the reader should be able to map real evaluation step to one described in the Documentation for the standard evaluation sequence.


Is it possible?



Answer



The cited OpenerView solution used Trace / TraceOriginal to generate its content. This allowed the definition of show in that response to be defined succinctly, but had the disadvantage of discarding some of the trace information. TraceScan provides more information since it calls a user-specified function at the start and end of every evaluation.


Two functions are defined below that try to format the TraceScan information in (somewhat) readable form.



traceView2 shows each expression as it is evaluated, along with the subevaluations ("steps") that lead to the result of that evaluation. "Drill-down" is provided by OpenerView. The function generates output that looks like this:


traceView2[(a + 1) + 2]

traceView2 screenshot


As one drills deeper into the view, it rapidly crawls off the right-hand side of the page. traceView4 provides an alternative view that does not exhibit the crawling behaviour at the expense of showing much less context for any given evaluation:


traceView4 screenshot


Choose your poison ;)


The definitions of the functions follow...


traceView2


ClearAll@traceView2

traceView2[expr_] :=
Module[{steps = {}, stack = {}, pre, post, show, dynamic},
pre[e_] := (stack = {steps, stack}; steps = {})
; post[e_, r_] :=
( steps = First@stack ~Join~ {show[e, HoldForm[r], steps]}
; stack = stack[[2]]
)
; SetAttributes[post, HoldAllComplete]
; show[e_, r_, steps_] :=
Grid[

steps /. {
{} -> {{"Expr ", Row[{e, " ", Style["inert", {Italic, Small}]}]}}
, _ -> { {"Expr ", e}
, {"Steps", steps /.
{ {} -> Style["no definitions apply", Italic]
, _ :> OpenerView[{Length@steps, dynamic@Column[steps]}]}
}
, {"Result", r}
}
}

, Alignment -> Left
, Frame -> All
, Background -> {{LightCyan}, None}
]
; TraceScan[pre, expr, ___, post]
; Deploy @ Pane[steps[[1]] /. dynamic -> Dynamic, ImageSize -> 10000]
]
SetAttributes[traceView2, {HoldAllComplete}]

traceView4



ClearAll@traceView4
traceView4[expr_] :=
Module[{steps = {}, stack = {}, pre, post},
pre[e_] := (stack = {steps, stack}; steps = {})
; post[e_, r_] :=
( steps = First@stack ~Join~ {{e, steps, HoldForm[r]}}
; stack = stack[[2]]
)
; SetAttributes[post, HoldAllComplete]
; TraceScan[pre, expr, ___, post]

; DynamicModule[{focus, show, substep, enter, exit}
, focus = steps
; substep[{e_, {}, _}, _] := {Null, e, Style["inert", {Italic, Small}]}
; substep[{e_, _, r_}, p_] :=
{ Button[Style["show", Small], enter[p]]
, e
, Style[Row[{"-> ", r}], Small]
}
; enter[{p_}] := PrependTo[focus, focus[[1, 2, p]]]
; exit[] := focus = Drop[focus, 1]

; show[{e_, s_, r_}] :=
Column[
{ Grid[
{ {"Expression", Column@Reverse@focus[[All, 1]]}
, { Column[
{ "Steps"
, focus /.
{ {_} :> Sequence[]
, _ :> Button["Back", exit[], ImageSize -> Automatic]
}

}
]
, Grid[MapIndexed[substep, s], Alignment -> Left]
}
, {"Result", Column@focus[[All, 3]]}
}
, Alignment -> Left, Frame -> All, Background -> {{LightCyan}}
]
}
]

; Dynamic @ show @ focus[[1]]
]
]
SetAttributes[traceView4, {HoldAllComplete}]

Comments

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}]

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}]

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.