Skip to main content

pattern matching - Calling Table with custom iterator


I often find myself in situations where I, for example, need to build a table for some expression, but want to set the number of points rather then the step size, so the code ends up looking like this


lower = 0.2;
upper = Pi^2;
points = 100;
Table[Sin[x], {x, lower, upper, (upper - lower)/(points - 1)}] // ListPlot

I think that the typical Table syntax is much nicer in cases where we want to set the stepsize, but would much rather prefer to just think of the iteration specifications to be of the form {var,min,max,num} in these cases. Initially I though I would to this by just defining a function that takes this other iteration specification and returns the traditional equivalent, but since Table has holdall, you'd need to wrap everything in Evaluate which isn't pretty either example:


myIter[L_]:={L[[1]],L[[2]],L[[3]],(L[[3]]-L[[2]])/L[[4]]}
Table[Sin[x], Evaluate@myIter[{x, 0.2, Pi^2, 100}]] // ListPlot


So to get around this I added a pattern to modify the way Table is called if the second argument was wrapped in linIter:


linIter /: Table[exp_, iterator_linIter] := Table[exp, Evaluate@myIter[List @@ iterator]]
Table[Sin[x], linIter[x, 0.2, Pi^2, 100]] // ListPlot

This then allows me to have somewhat nice syntax to specify a new iterator.


So my questions are



  • Whether others have a more elegant way of implementing this, that allows one to call the expression with multiple iterators mixing step size and number based?

  • What capabilities of Table I might possibly be losing by calling it this way?


  • Is it possible to retain the syntax highlighting of Table while doing this?

  • Also I'd appreciate general feedback. Am I committing blasphemy by messing with the call syntax for a built-in, or is would you easily get the intention if you where reading though some code that relied on this type of tricks to sort of have custom iterators?



Answer



You're not committing a blasphemy. In fact, you're defining an upvalue to your own symbol, so you're in the safe zone. I think your idea of using upvalues was a good one.


Alternatives are, to define your own parsing function such as


SetAttributes[it, HoldFirst];
it[Table[expr_, {var_, start_, end_, num_Integer}]]:=
Table[expr, Evaluate@{var, start, end, (end-start)/(num-1)}]


so when you do the following you get what you want


Table[something[x], {x, 0, 10, 23}]//it

This could be extended to multiple iterator types. For example, doing the following


iterator["numpoints"]=Function[,it[##],HoldAll];

you can now do


Table[something[x], {x, 0, 10, 23}]//iterator["numPoints"]

and extend it the same way.



You could also define a myTable function that calls table and accepts an option of the iterator type.


The possible con of your original solution is the loss of the syntax highlighting. Perhaps it's not ideal but you could change it from


myIter[L_]:={L[[1]],L[[2]],L[[3]],(L[[3]]-L[[2]])/L[[4]]}

to


myIter[st_, en_, num_]:=(Range[num]-1)(en-st)+st

and then use it


Table[sth, {x, myIter[0, 10, 12]}]


Check the function FindDivisions


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

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...