Skip to main content

function construction - Clean and handy Options management/filtering


the case


I want to be able to create a function with some default options but also without need to add full explicit list of options available for it.


And then inside I want to be able to filter from given and default options, those which are Button options or Tooltip options for example.


So something like:


Options[f] = {(*list of default options*)}


f[args__, OptionsPattern[]]:=Column[{
   (*Options that are suitable for Button*),
   (*Options that are suitable for Tooltip*),
   OptionValue[(*specific name*)]
 }]

And I wasn't able to get this with built in Options management functions: OptionsPattern[], OptionValue, FilterRules etc.


additional requirements





  1. I want to avoid Options[f] = Join[customOptions, Options[Button], ...].


    I don't think is a good solution, there may be duplicates in customOptions for them and an explicit list of Options[f] grows.




  2. I want to be able to provide any option to the function without error messsage e.g.: Unknown option Apparance for f...




  3. We can get 2. by skipping OptionsPattern[] in definition but without it we can't use built in OptionValue. I want to be able to refer to functions by their names.





  4. Rules filtering mechanism should not produce duplicates. I know Button[..., ImageSize->300, ImageSize->200] will behave stable but I find it ugly.




my approach


(* auxiliary functions *)

mergeRules = GatherBy[Join[##], First][[All, 1]] &;

optionValue = #2 /. # &;


(* function definition *)

ClearAll[f];
Options[f] = {"Test" -> 1, ImageSize -> 100, TooltipDelay -> 20};

f[x_, optionsPattern : (_Rule | _RuleDelayed) ...] := With[{
   opt = mergeRules[{optionsPattern}, Options[f]]}
  ,
  Column@{
    FilterRules[opt, Options@Button],

    FilterRules[opt, Options@Tooltip],
    optionValue[opt, "Test"]
    }
  ]

So I need to start my definitions with With[{ opt = mergeRules[ {optionsPattern}, Options[f]]}, which does not seem to be a big problem, but why I have to do this?


tests


f[1, Appearance -> "Palette"]



{Appearance->Palette, ImageSize->100} 
{TooltipDelay->20}
1

f[1, ImageSize -> 200]


{ImageSize->200}
{TooltipDelay->20}
1


f[1]


{ImageSize->100}
{TooltipDelay->20}
1

question


Is there simpler approach, with built functions maybe? Or should I include Options[Button] etc. to Options[f] and count on the fact that when given duplicates, first one wins?



Edits


Mr.Wizard's answer fulfills points:


1 automatically, 2/3 by using OptionsPattern[{f,Button, ...}]. So still 4 needs custom filtering function but it is a good answer anyway.




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