Skip to main content

pattern matching - Bug in RepeatedNull?


RepeatedNull appears to be buggy (versions 8.0, and 9.0).


Define f as follows:


In[1]:= f@s:{h_@___...} := List @@@ s

f is intended to accept (possibly empty) List of non-atomic (possibly empty) expressions with the same head and change that head to List. It seems to work properly at first:



In[2]:= f@{g[x], g[y]}
Out[2]= {{x}, {y}}

(Calculates as intended.)


In[3]:= f@{g[x], h[y]}
Out[3]= f[{g[x], h[y]}]

(Pattern does not match.)


However, f behaves unexpectedly on an empty List:


In[4]:= f@{}

Out[4]= {1}

The pattern does match, as it should, but the appearance of 1 is a complete mystery. I expected f@{} to be List @@@ {}, which is {}. Tracing didn't tell me anything:


In[5]:= Trace[f@{}, TraceInternal -> True]
Out[5]= {f[{}], List@@{1}, {1}}

It's probably a bug. Defining f@{} as a special case seems to fix the problem. However, 1) it's not actually a special case, and 2) I'm not sure in the correctness of the definition since there may be something wrong with the pattern I picked.




  1. Was {h_@___...} the right choice of pattern for “(possibly empty) List of non-atomic (possibly empty) expressions with the same head”?





  2. Is there a plausible explanation where does 1 come from?




UPD:


To clear things up I'll elaborate on a test example by @m_goldberg (from the answer) and a note by @sebhofer (from a comment):


In[6]:= ReleaseHold[ClearAll /@ Hold[test1, test2]];
In[7]:= test1[patt1: {h_@___ ...}] := Row@{"With named head: ", patt1}
test2[patt2: {_@___ ...}] := Row@{"Without named head: ", patt2}


Results vary with use of named vs unnamed pattern. That's one aspect convincing me to calssify the issue as bug:


In[9]:= {test1@{}, test2@{}} // Column
Out[9]= "With named head:"
"Without named head:" {}

(Here and after, output formatting is adjusted manually.)


What also concerns me is that existing definitions don't get overwritten:


In[10]:= ClearAll@test
In[11]:= test[patt1 : {h_@___ ...}] := Row@{"With named head: ", patt1}

test[patt2 : {_@___ ...}] := Row@{"Without named head: ", patt2}
DownValues@test
Out[13]= {HoldPattern[test[patt2:{_[___]...}]] :> "Without named head:" patt2,
HoldPattern[test[patt1:{h_[___]...}]] :> "With named head:" patt1}
In[14]:= test@{}
Out[14]= "Without named head:" {}

DownValues is prepended with the subsequent ones:


In[15]:= test[patt1 : {h_@___ ...}] := Row@{"Newdef, with named head: ", patt1}
test[patt2 : {_@___ ...}] := Row@{"Newdef, without named head: ", patt2}

DownValues@test
Out[17]= {HoldPattern[test[patt2:{_[___]...}]] :> "Newdef, without named head:" patt2,
HoldPattern[test[patt1:{h_[___]...}]] :> "Newdef, with named head:" patt1,
HoldPattern[test[patt2:{_[___]...}]] :> "Without named head:" patt2,
HoldPattern[test[patt1:{h_[___]...}]] :> "With named head:" patt1}
In[18]:= test@{}
Out[18]= "Newdef, without named head:" {}

While output satisfactorily corresponds to new definition, this probably should not happen due to 1) unpredictability; 2) garbage accumulation.


(Additional examples of unstable pattern matching with RepeatedNull may be found in comments.)




Answer



Here is some evidence concerning what is going wrong.


ff[arg : {(h : _)@___ ...}] := Row @ {h, " : ", arg}

ff @ {u[x]}


u : {u[x]}

ff @ {{x}}



List : {{x}}

ff @ {{}}


List : {{}}

All the above show what one would expect, but



ff @ {}


{} : 

In this last case, I conclude that h has been matched with {} and arg has been matched with Sequence[]. I can not but think that this is a bug.


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.