[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Interaction of Remove and Global variables in a Module
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg120131] Re: Interaction of Remove and Global variables in a Module
*From*: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
*Date*: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 07:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
So far, I haven't heard a purpose for Remove that ClearAll does not serve
just as well... without the side-effect of "spoiling" other symbols.
Bobby
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 03:53:55 -0500, Leonid Shifrin <lshifr at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Brian,
>
> The problem you encountered is actually more subtle. Remember that when
> you
> use Remove (as compared to Clear or ClearAll), the symbol is completely
> removed
> from the system. This is a pretty disruptive operation. Now, what should
> the system do if the symbol you are removing is referenced by some other
> symbols?
> Keeping it there unchanged would mean that the symbol has not been
> really removed
> from the system. The solution used in Mathematica is to change a
> reference to a
> symbol
> (say "a") to Removed[a]. In practice, this means that, even when you
> re-introduce
> the symbol, those definitions that were involving it are still "spoiled"
> and
> can not
> be used. IMO, this is a very sensible design, but this is what leads to
> the
> behavior
> that puzzled you. Have a look:
>
> f[b_]:=Module[{t},a[t_]=b*t^2;]
> Remove[a];
> ?f
>
> Global`f
> f[b_]:=Module[{t},Removed[a][t_]=b t^2;]
>
> What you have to do in your approach is to re-run the definition for
> "f", to
> be able to
> use it. This is however pretty error-prone. You can cure this by calling
> Clear or ClearAll
> instead of Remove, but even this approach I don't consider a good
> practice.
> Even though
> you use "a" as a function, calling Clear or Remove on it means that in a
> way, you use
> it as a global variable. In this post:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6236458/plot-using-with-versus-plot-using-block-mathematica/6236808#6236808
>
> there is a lengthy discussion why making implicit dependencies on global
> variables is a
> bad practice.
>
> Here are a few ways out. What you seem to want is to generate a function
> with embedded
> parameters (a closure). One way is to generate a pure function and return
> it:
>
> In[31]:= Clear[f];
> f[b_]:=Function[t,b*t^2];
> a = f[3];
> a[t]
> a=f[4];
> a[t]
> Remove[a];
> a = f[5];
> a[t]
>
> Out[34]= 3 t^2
> Out[36]= 4 t^2
> Out[39]= 5 t^2
>
> Another way is to explicitly pass to "f" the symbol to which you want to
> assign
> the definition:
>
> In[40]:= Clear[ff,a];
> ff[fname_Symbol,b_]:=Module[{t},fname[t_]=b*t^2;];
> ff[a,3];
> a[t]
> ff[a,4];
> a[t]
> Remove[a];
> ff[a,5];
> a[t]
>
> Out[43]= 3 t^2
> Out[45]= 4 t^2
> Out[48]= 5 t^2
>
> By making the function name an explicit parameter to "ff", you make the
> problematic
> situation above impossible to happen.
>
> HTH
>
> Regards,
> Leonid
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:28 PM, blamm64 <blamm64 at charter.net> wrote:
>
>> This is what I get for querying SetDelayed
>>
>> In[1]:= ?SetDelayed
>> lhs:=rhs assigns rhs to be the delayed value of lhs. rhs is maintained
>> in an unevaluated form. When lhs appears, it is replaced by rhs,
>> evaluated afresh each time. >>
>>
>> Note particularly the above reads AFRESH EACH time. It appears then
>> the following is inconsistent behavior based on the above description:
>>
>> In[2]:= f[b_]:=Module[{t},a[t_]=b*t^2;]
>> In[3]:= a[t]
>> Out[3]= a[t]
>> In[4]:= f[3]
>> In[5]:= a[t]//InputForm
>> Out[5]//InputForm=
>> 3*t^2
>> In[6]:= f[5]
>> In[7]:= a[t]//InputForm
>> Out[7]//InputForm=
>> 5*t^2
>> In[8]:= Remove[a]
>> In[9]:= f[4]
>> In[10]:= a[t]//InputForm
>> Out[10]//InputForm=
>> a[t]
>>
>> Apparently AFRESH is not an accurate description of how SetDelayed
>> operates in this case, or I am missing something about this particular
>> interaction of Module, Remove, and global variables inside Modules.
>>
>> However, if I go back, after executing the last line above (<a> has
>> been Removed), and place the cursor in the input line where <f> is
>> defined and hit Enter, which I thought would be identical to just
>> evaluating <f> AFRESH again, and then execute the <f[4]> line again,
>> then the global <a> definition is re-constituted.
>>
>> The documentation for Remove reads the name is no longer recognized by
>> Mathematica. My understanding is that if the same name is defined
>> AFRESH, it will once again be recognized.
>>
>> So if anyone would let me know what I am missing, regarding why the
>> definition of <a> is not created AFRESH each time <f> is evaluated, I
>> would appreciate it.
>>
>> Please don't construe the definition of <f> as my way of
>> 'parameterizing' a function definition, I just use that definition to
>> convey the apparent inconsistency.
>>
>> -Brian L.
>>
>>
--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
Prev by Date:
**Re: How to write a "proper" math document**
Next by Date:
**Re: Interaction of Remove and Global variables in a Module**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Interaction of Remove and Global variables in a Module**
Next by thread:
**Re: Interaction of Remove and Global variables in a Module**
| |