Skip to main content

Alternatives ordering affects pattern matching in Cases?


Given


expr = f[x, g[y], z]

In the following query, the pattern h_[__, c_] appears as last slot in Alternatives:


Cases[expr, (h_[c_] | h_[c_, __] | h_[__, c_, __] | h_[__, c_]) :> 
h -> c, {0, Infinity}]


Gives


{g -> y, f -> x}

Ie, "f[__,z]" is not matched but is matched when the pattern is rotated to the first slot:


Cases[expr, (h_[__, c_] | h_[c_] | h_[c_, __] | h_[__, c_, __]) :> 
h -> c, {0, Infinity}]

Which gives:


{g -> y, f -> z}


Souldn't Alternatives be commutative? Apparentely only the first match per level is returned. Is there a method to return x, y and z containing patterns?



Answer




  • Patterns in Alternatives are tried in order

  • Only the first pattern that matches is "applied" to the expression.

  • Cases does not support multiple patterns outside of Alternatives.


I suppose it could be interesting to debate that design decision but nevertheless that's the way it works at this time.


You could of course search with multiple passes:



expr = f[x, g[y], z]
pat = h_[c_] | h_[c_, __] | h_[__, c_, __] | h_[__, c_];

Join @@ (Cases[expr, # :> h -> c, {0, -1}] & /@ List @@ pat)


{g -> y, f -> x, f -> g[y], f -> z}

Or using ReplaceList and Level:


rules = # :> h -> c & /@ List @@ pat

Join @@ (ReplaceList[#, rules] & /@ Level[expr, {0, -1}])

Since neither of these is efficient you could subvert the normal evaluation by using side-effects, e.g. with Condition:


Module[{f},
f[pat] := 1 /; Sow[h -> c];
Reap[Scan[f, expr, {0, -1}]][[2, 1]]
]


{g -> y, f -> x, f -> g[y], f -> z}


Or more cleanly, though perhaps rather enigmatically, using Cases itself:


Reap[Cases[expr, pat :> 1 /; Sow[h -> c], {0, -1}];][[2, 1]]


{g -> y, f -> x, f -> g[y], f -> z}

Finally, if traversal order is irrelevant:


Reap[expr /. pat :> 1 /; Sow[h -> c]][[2, 1]]



{f -> x, f -> g[y], f -> z, g -> y}



A note regarding another ramification of Alternatives is here:





NOTE: It looks like my assumptions about efficiency were wrong, and the multi-pass method may be more efficient than the rest. I need to explore this further but I have neither the time nor the interest right now.


Comments

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}]

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 - 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....