Skip to main content

evaluation - Unevaluated @ {args} versus Unevaluated /@ {args}


Working my way through Robby Villegas's lovely notes on withholding evaluation, I almost got Polish Notation on my first try. Here is my final solution, which seems to work well enough:


ClearAll[lispify];
SetAttributes[lispify, HoldAll];
lispify[h_[args___]] :=
  Prepend[
   lispify /@ Unevaluated @ {args},
   lispify[h]];

lispify[s_ /; AtomQ[s]] := s;

lispify[Unevaluated[2^4 * 3^2]]

produces



{Times, {Power, 2, 4}, {Power, 3, 2}}



My first try had only one difference, namely


lispify /@ Unevaluated /@ {args}


and sent me down a frustrating rabbit hole until I stumbled on the corrected one above.


Would someone be so kind as to explain the details of both the correct and incorrect solution?


EDIT:


As a minor bonus, this enables a nice way to visualize unevaluated expression trees:


ClearAll[stringulateLisp];
stringulateLisp[l_List] := stringulateLisp /@ l;
stringulateLisp[e_] := ToString[e];
ClearAll[stringTree];
stringTree[l_List] := First[l][Sequence @@ stringTree /@ Rest[l]];

stringTree[e_] := e;
ClearAll[treeForm];
treeForm = TreeForm@*stringTree@*stringulateLisp@*lispify;
treeForm[Unevaluated[2^4 + 3^2]]

Mathematica graphics



Answer



You must remember that Unevaluated only "works" when it is the explicit head of an expression. In the non-working format the structure looks like:


TreeForm @ HoldForm[lispify /@ Unevaluated /@ {arg1, arg2}]


enter image description here


Note that Unevaluated does not surround arg1 and arg2 therefore they evaluate prematurely.


Now compare the working structure:


TreeForm @ HoldForm[lispify /@ Unevaluated @ {arg1, arg2}]

enter image description here


Here Unevaluated does surround arg1 and arg2 and evaluation is prevented.


See also:





By the way you can show an unevaluated TreeForm by using an additional Unevaluated to compensate for an apparent evaluation leak.


treeForm =
  Function[expr, TreeForm @ Unevaluated @ Unevaluated @ expr, HoldFirst]

Test:


2^4*3^2 // treeForm

enter image description here


Also possibly of interest: Converting expressions to "edges" for use in TreePlot, Graph


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

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