Skip to main content

associations - Manipulating unevaluated expressions in nested function calls


This is a follow-up to my earlier question: Passing an unevaluated part of an association to a function


I'm trying to create a modular dashboard that controls sound volume of an audio system consisting of several speakers.


System settings are given by the following association:


speakers = <|
"speaker1" -> <|"volume" -> 0.5|>,
"speaker2" -> <|"volume" -> 0.7|>
|>


I have a simple widget AdjustOneSpeaker that takes in a part of the speakers variable corresponding to one of the speakers, and dynamically adjusts its volume using a slider:


SetAttributes[AdjustOneSpeaker, HoldAll];

AdjustOneSpeaker[speaker_] := {
Slider[Dynamic[speaker["volume"]]],
Dynamic[speaker["volume"]]
};

Passing speakers["speaker1"] to this widget works fine:


AdjustOneSpeaker[speakers["speaker1"]]


To use AdjustOneSpeaker function as a building block for a composite dashboard, I must be able to map it over the speakers association (i.e. over all speakers):


SetAttributes[AdjustAllSpeakers, HoldAll];

AdjustAllSpeakers[speakers_] := AdjustOneSpeaker /@ speakers // Values;

Unfortunately, this operation forces an evaluation of the individual parts of speakers before they are passed to AdjustOneSpeaker, making it impossible for the slider to set the volume fields of the global speakers association (since its argument is no longer a reference to the global field, but an association literal):


AdjustAllSpeakers[speakers]



Association::setps: <|volume->0.5|> in the part assignment is not a symbol. >>



Is there a way to pass an unevaluated part of an unevaluated speakers association to AdjustOneSpeaker here?



Answer



Although I urge you to consider a method like the one below as I think it will ultimately make your coding experience easier, for the specific example in hand you can prevent the unwanted evaluation by writing speakers inside AdjustOneSpeaker where it is held (by HoldAll). Note also that you need to map over the Keys of the association, not its values.


AdjustOneSpeaker[speakers@#] & /@ Keys[speakers] // Grid

enter image description here


Conceptual handling of active expressions


In my opinion you should try to avoid passing around expressions like speakers["speaker1"] for the very reason of the evaluation that brought about your question. This is similar to defining functions/procedures like doSometing := Print[foo] whereas I always write doSomething[] := Print[foo] instead as the latter lets me pass doSometing around without fear of evaluation.



In your application you might define a new head like so:


SetAttributes[ascSpec, HoldFirst];
ascSpec[asc__][part__] := ascSpec[asc, part]

Now you can map it onto the Keys of speakers without unwanted action:


ascSpec[speakers] /@ Keys[speakers]


{ascSpec[speakers, "speaker1"], ascSpec[speakers, "speaker2"]}


You would then define your slider maker to handle this container:


SetAttributes[adjust1, HoldAll];

adjust1[ascSpec[asc_, parts___] | asc_] :=
{Slider[Dynamic[asc[parts, "volume"]]], Dynamic[asc[parts, "volume"]]};

adjust1 /@ {ascSpec[speakers, "speaker1"], ascSpec[speakers, "speaker2"]} // Grid

enter image description here


Playing with Unevaluated



As an example of the kind of gymnastics the method above is intended to avoid here is an example of trying to solve the problem by way of Unevaluated. Admittedly I am not giving this my best effort and there may be a cleaner form but I am also not making this intentionally baroque. I'll show the process step by step so you can watch the transformation:


Keys[speakers]
Hold @@ %
Unevaluated[speakers] /@ %
AdjustOneSpeaker /@ %
List @@ % // Grid


{"speaker1", "speaker2"}


Hold["speaker1", "speaker2"]

Hold[speakers["speaker1"], speakers["speaker2"]]

Hold[AdjustOneSpeaker[speakers["speaker1"]], AdjustOneSpeaker[speakers["speaker2"]]]

enter image description here



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.