Skip to main content

programming - How to eliminate the need to double evaluate a Manipulate so that a Module in its Initialization section works?


Using V 8.04 on windows.


I think this issue might be related to the fact that Mathematica reads main body the Manipulate before evaluating or running the Initialization option.



Or, might be related to, and I quote "Symbols (and their contexts) are created when parsing, not evaluation" as per this question at SO


Too complicated for me to figure it.


I have a Manipulate with a Module in its Initialization section. I find that I need to evaluate the cell which Manipulate is in 2 times to get the correct behavior (ie. have all symbols fully evaluated)


There might be also a way to go around this using Leonid idea shown here but I can't use this method, if it applicable here, as it uses a BeginPackage which is not allowed for my setup.


Since the code used will be in a CDF/demo, these are the symbols I had errors using before and I can't use in a demo: SetOptions, ToExpression, Symbol , $Context, SetAttributes, Clear, Unprotect, DownValues, UpValues, OwnValues and packages not allowed to be used or created. Also, Manipulate[] has to be the most outside construct.


Now, here is the problem description. I Quit[] kernel, and clear everything


Remove["Global`*"]

Then in new cell I evaluate this Manipulate


Manipulate[

x;
init[obj];
get[obj],

Button["run", x++],
{x, None},
{{obj, makeObj[]}, None},
TrackedSymbols :> {x},

Initialization :>

{
makeObj[] := Module[{obj, u},
init[obj] ^:= u = {1, 2, 3};
get[obj] ^:= {u, Date[]};
Return [obj]
]
}
]

which gives this output



enter image description here


You can see that the value of symbol u is not evaluated. Now I go back the Manipulate cell, and evaluate it again (Hit ENTER in the cell) and now I see


enter image description here


So, it takes 2 evaluations to have this work as expected.


Is there a way to make this setup work with one evaluation?




Update (1)


This is my finding comparing the 3 methods below to try to see which one will work for me best.


First, the 3 methods solve the above problem for me. Next, I looked to see which method works best when I make a copy of the code, to see if the new copy will share anything with the old copy of Manipulate, as this is important issue in making demos.


To do that, I modified the above Manipulate example a little to make it return the object itself (obj$nnnn) so I can see if it is named differently or not in the new copy, and also added a counter to see if changing the counter in one copy will update the counter in the other.



Below are the 3 Manipulate example codes, one for each method, and below that I show a result of what I found from the test:


Method 1 (Kugler method)


Manipulate[x;
get[obj],
Button["add to counter", x++],
Button["zero the counter", init[obj]],
{x, None},
{{obj, makeObj[]}, None},
TrackedSymbols :> {x},
Initialization :>

{
makeObj[] := makeObj[] = Module[{obj, u = 0},
init[obj] ^:= u = 0;
get[obj] ^:= {obj, u++, Date[]};
obj
]
}
]

Method 2: (Faysal method):



Manipulate[x;
get[obj],
Button["add to counter", x++],
Button["zero the counter", init[obj]],
{x, None},
{{obj,
makeObj[] := Module[{obj, u = 0},
init[obj] ^:= u = 0;
get[obj] ^:= {obj, u++, Date[]};
obj

];
makeObj[]
}, None},
TrackedSymbols :> {x}
]

Method 3: (Albert method)


Manipulate[x;
get[obj],
Button["add to counter", x++],

Button["zero the counter", init[obj]],
{x, None},
{{obj, None}, None},

TrackedSymbols :> {x},

Initialization :>
{
makeObj[] := Module[{obj, u = 0},
init[obj] ^:= u = 0;

get[obj] ^:= {obj, u++, Date[]};
obj
];
obj = makeObj[];
init[obj];
}
]

Testing method and results:


Before running each test, I did



Remove["Global`*"]

Then evaluated the Manipulate cell, then clicked on the add counter to make it go to 10, then made a copy of the Manipulate output to a new cell (copy/paste). Then looked to see what shows up in the new copy, and if the new symbol will have zero as value, as that is the initial value for it, or not, and if the symbol name will be different as well.


The results is: Method(1) and method(3) generate a new symbol. But With method (1), this happens only when I click the button on the first Manipulate to increment it one more time. Initially both output had the same obj$nnn value.


Method (3), did not have this issue. The new copy immediately showed zero as value of the symbol, and also new symbol name obj$mmm.


I was surprised, because I thought Method(2) since Module is inside Manipulate it will have a new symbol when I make a copy. Learned something new today.


This screen shot shows the results.


Therefore, Method (3) will work best for me in a demo, as it is a requirement that new copy of Manipulate do not interact with old one.


enter image description here


Thanks to everyone for their help, I learned from all of these answers.




Answer



Still not sure whether this is what you intended, but if you keep initialization stuff within the Initialization things seem to behave well:


Manipulate[x;
get[obj],
Button["run", x++],
{x, None},
{{obj, None}, None},
TrackedSymbols :> {x},
Initialization :> (
makeObj[] := Module[{obj, u},

init[obj] ^:= u = {1, 2, 3};
get[obj] ^:= {obj, u, Date[]};
obj
];
obj = makeObj[];
init[obj];
)
]

I have seen that Faysal Aberkane has given an explanation what goes wrong in the first place. I just had prepared a piece of code which shows you in which order the various parts are evaluated, so I thought I'll share it, although it doesn't add anything new:



Manipulate[
WriteString[$Output, "body\n"];
x,
Button["run", x++],
{x, None},
{{obj, Print["var. init"]}, None},
TrackedSymbols :> {x},
Initialization :> {
Print["Initialization option"]
}

]

Here is another try which only uses frontend owned variables:


Manipulate[x;
"init"[obj];
"get"[obj],
Button["run", x++],
{x, None},
{u, None},
{obj, None},

TrackedSymbols :> {x},
Initialization :> (
obj =.;
"init"[obj] ^:= u = {1, 2, 3};
"get"[obj] ^:= {obj, Hold[u], u, Date[]};
)
]

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.