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

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

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more