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 - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?