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 - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...