[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Re: Pick function

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg62953] Re: [mg62928] Re: [mg62906] Pick function
• From: "Oyvind Tafjord" <tafjord at wolfram.com>
• Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:10:34 -0500 (EST)
• References: <200512080504.AAA11713@smc.vnet.net> <200512080836.DAA18265@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrzej Kozlowski" <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
Subject: [mg62953] [mg62928] Re: [mg62906] Pick function


>
> On 8 Dec 2005, at 14:04, Zdenek Buk wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have found a strange behavior of the "Pick" function.
>>
>> Testing data:
>> ------------
>> In[1]:=
>> l = {1, a -> b, x, c -> 1, d -> e + f, g + h}
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Try to use the Pick function:
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> In[4]:=
>> sel1=Pick[l,l,_->_]
>>
>> Out[4]=
>> {a->b,c->1,d->e+f,0}
>>
<snipped explanation>
>
> I am not completely sure whether this was entirely intended by the
> designer's of Pick and whether it would not be better if Pick had an
> option specifying the level at which the attempted matching should
> take place, but in any case, it shows that you have to use it carefully.
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
>

Hi,

The explanation from Andrzej is correct, and I agree the behavior of Pick 
can be somewhat confusing at times. The key to remember is that the full 
nested structure of the selector (2nd) argument is used.

Having a level specification in Pick is probably not a bad idea, although 
it's really intended for use with selectors that have the exact structure of 
the result you want. So you could do something like

Pick[l, MatchQ[#, _ -> _] & /@ l]

although that wouldn't be very efficient for this particular case.

Oyvind Tafjord
Wolfram Research 

• References:
  • Pick function
    • From: Zdenek Buk <zdenek@buk.cz>
  • Re: Pick function
    • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>