Skip to main content

programming - How to leave function unevaluated programmatically?


Is it possible to write a function in such manner, that it can be either evaluated or left unevaluated?


This is a general question. Sample below is just a sample. No need to find solution for this sample. Need a general solution.


Hypothetical sample:



F[x_] := If[x>=0,
Sqrt[x],
Fail[]
];

So that it gives


F[4]
(* ==> 2 *)

But



F[-4]
(* ==> F[-4] *)

I.e. hypothetical function Fail[] stays for "drop evaluation and leave expression unevaluated".


I know I can use Condition


F[x_] := Sqrt[x] /; x >= 0

But I wish to do that in imperative programming way. Is this possible?


UPDATE


I don't understand why this is not working:



F[x_] := Block[{fail},
(If[x >= 0,
fail = False;
Sqrt[x],
fail = True
]) /; ! fail]

UPDATE 1


Manual has a good example


f[x_] := Module[{a}, a = Prime[10^x];

(FactorInteger[a + 1]) /; a < 10^6]

which is checking internal variables, not arguments. But why my version above not works then?



Answer



Your posted code does not work because some of the code you want to evaluate is given as an argument to Condition which holds its arguments, you could make it work by changing this


f[x_] := Block[{ans, success},
ans = If[x >= 0, success = 1; Sqrt[x], success = 0];
ans /; (success == 1)
]


Notice that the first line of code is process outside of Condition. It might be easier to see if you write it in expression form:


f[x_] := Block[{ans, success},
ans = If[x >= 0, success = 1; Sqrt[x], success = 0];
Condition[ans,success == 1]
]

Compare this with how your example would be in expression form:


 F[x_] := Block[{fail},
Condition[If[x >= 0,fail = False;Sqrt[x],fail = True], ! fail]]


You should be able to tell the difference. In the working code the code that sets fail is evaluated before Condition is evaluated. In your code, Condition is evaluated first, which holds the evaluation of the code. This is because condition has Attributes HoldAll.


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.