Skip to main content

SciDraw error loading package


I am running Ma 10.3. When I try to Get SciDraw package I get the following error:


AppendTo[$Path, "C:\\Users\\username\\mathematica"];
Get["SciDraw`"]


SetDelayed::write: "Tag MissingQ in MissingQ[expr_] is Protected".

Can someone confirm the problem?


Update


The Mathematicas v10-v10.3 contain bugs regardinng using a custom function for ticks and maybe this problem is inter-related. In v10.4, one can use a custom function again but for log scales, wolfram changed syntax so that it sends min and max values scaled rather than as in v9, however, in some cases, mathematica still sends unscaled values (FrameTicks or a composed function). See this post.



Answer



Unfortunately, SciDraw does indeed cause error messages because SciDraw tries to define functions which have been introduced into the core Wolfram language since SciDraw was introduced. One of these probably started in v10.2, over MissingQ, and the other probably dates to v10.4, over BoundingRegion. Users with earlier versions of Mathematica are unlikely to encounter these issues.


MissingQ, v10.2 and later


This is the error you found. Some digging around locates the following definition in FigData.m,



MissingQ[expr_] := ! FreeQ[expr, Missing];

with some text notes on the corresponding section of FigData.nb that indicate that this section is still relatively rough around the edges. This defines a pretty reasonable function, to check whether expr is 'missing', in the formal sense that it includes objects of the form Missing["reason"].


Unfortunately, a very similar function of the same name, MissingQ, was introduced in v10.2, with a slightly narrower meaning:



MissingQ[expr] gives True if expr has head Missing.



That is, MissingQ[2 Missing[]] will return True in the SciDraw implementation and False in the core implementation.


However, as far as I can tell, SciDraw's MissingQ is not used anywhere else in the code - indeed, it is not assigned a usage message, which is a good flag that it's not meant to be used yet - so if the message bothers you, it's probably safe to simply comment that line out. You're unlikely to break anything that isn't already broken (the error message indicates that the intended (re)definition of the function failed anyway.


BoundingRegion, v10.4 and later



As pointed out in the comments, there's a second error message - actually a pair of them - in later versions of Mathematica:


SetDelayed::write: Tag BoundingRegion in BoundingRegion[ObjectList:{(_Object?(And[
  <<2>>]&)|_?(And[<<2>>]&)|_Object?(And[<<2>>]&)|_?(And[<<2>>]&))..}] is Protected.

SetDelayed::write: Tag BoundingRegion in BoundingRegion[obj:_Object?(ObjectExistsQ[
  Slot[<<1>>]]&&MemberQ[ClassAncestry[<<1>>],FigAnchor]&)|_?(ObjectExistsQ[Object[
  <<1>>]]&&MemberQ[ClassAncestry[<<1>>],FigAnchor]&)|_Object?(ObjectExistsQ[Slot[
  <<1>>]]&&MemberQ[ClassAncestry[<<1>>],FigObject]&)|_?(ObjectExistsQ[Object[
  <<1>>]]&&MemberQ[ClassAncestry[<<1>>],FigObject]&)] is Protected.


The problem is exactly the same one, caused by the following definition in SciDraw's FigGeometry.m,


BoundingRegion[
  ObjectList:{(ObjectPattern[FigAnchor] | ObjectNamePattern[FigAnchor] | 
               ObjectPattern[FigObject] | ObjectNamePattern[FigObject] )..}
]:=Module[
    {},
    FigCheckInFigure[BoundingRegion];
    Canvas[ObjectCanvasBox[ObjectList]]
];


BoundingRegion[
  obj:((ObjectPattern[FigAnchor] | ObjectNamePattern[FigAnchor] | 
        ObjectPattern[FigObject] | ObjectNamePattern[FigObject] ))
]:=BoundingRegion[{obj}];

DeclareFigFallThroughError[BoundingRegion];

with the usage message



BoundingRegion[{p1,p2,…,obj1,obj2,…}] returns a region specification Canvas[{{xmin,xmax},{ymin,ymax}}] for the bounding box surrounding the given objects or points/anchors.




It is also documented in §7.4 of the SciDraw user guide, as



BoundingRegion[{p1,p2,…,obj1, obj2,…}]Returns a region specification which circumscribes the given points (or anchors) p1, p2, …, and objects obj1, obj2, …



The corresponding function, BoundingRegion, was introduced into the core language in v10.4, and it does do roughly the same sort of thing, but unfortunately the details are rather different:



BoundingRegion[{pt1, pt2,…}] gives the minimal axis-aligned bounding box for the points pt1, pt2, ….


BoundingRegion[{pt1, pt2,…},form] gives a bounding region of type form.


BoundingRegion[mesh,…] gives a bounding region for a MeshRegion or BoundaryMeshRegion.




This means that the two functions cannot really be substituted for each other. Fortunately, the situation is only slightly worse than with MissingQ:



  • BoundingRegion is not used elsewhere in the package as far as I can tell, so the conflict doesn't break anything else (and neither would removing the definition). It is defined as a user-accessible function, which is now lost. This will need to be addressed in future versions of the package.

  • Similarly to MissingQ, the error message indicates that the proposed (re)definition did not succeed, so if the error message bothers you, you can comment out those lines and the package's function will be identical.



This answer is current as of v11.0.0. Because of the nature of the functions defined in SciDraw, it's possible that further clashes will develop in the future - but hopefully not!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
Post a Comment
Read more