Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2011

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

Search the Archive

Re: execution model: Function vs. delayed execution

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg121353] Re: execution model: Function vs. delayed execution
  • From: Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:20:17 -0400 (EDT)
  • Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Rowe" <readnews at sbcglobal.net>
> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 6:29:49 AM
> Subject: Re: execution model: Function vs. delayed execution
> On 9/10/11 at 7:30 AM, alan.isaac at gmail.com (Alan) wrote:
> 
> >I am used to a deferred execution model of function definition.
> >Roughly, if I can write code that would be successfully executed
> >outside a function definition, then I can make it a function body by
> >appropriately "wrapping" it.
> 
> >In Mathematica, I can evaluate the following):
> >x = {1,1,2}
> >x=DeleteDuplicates[x]; x
> >(Note: the redundancy is intentional.)
> 
> >Next, I attempt to "wrap" this as follows
> >Clear[x]
> >Function[x, (x=DeleteDuplicates[x];x)][{1,1,2}]
> 
> >This produces an error: Set::shape: "Lists {1,1,2} and {1,2} are not
> >the same shape."
> 
> >Can you help me understand the execution model that leads to this?
> 
> The code
> 
> Function[x, (x=DeleteDuplicates[x];x)][{1,1,2}]
> 
> has x playing two roles, as a formal argument to the function
> and to hold the result. Mathematica attempts to evaluate the
> function body by replacing x with the {1,1,2} wherever x
> appears. This results in attempting to evaluate
> 
> {1,1,2}=DeleteDuplicates[{1,1,2}]
> 
> which is what generates the error message. Adding a new variable
> to the code, i.e.,
> 
> Function[x, (y=DeleteDuplicates[x];y)][{1,1,2}]
> 
> eliminates the problem and error message. Or more simply,
> 
> Function[x, DeleteDuplicates[x]][{1,1,2}]
> 
> Obviously, this last eliminates the redundancy which you state
> was intentional.

Another alternative would be to have the function hold its argument, and pass it the symbol rather than value.

In[273]:= x = {1, 1, 2};

In[274]:= Function[x, x = DeleteDuplicates[x]; x, HoldFirst][x]
Out[274]= {1, 2}

This has the effect of changing the value of symbol x,  not just returning the altered value. That is to say, we have in effect a call-by-reference rather than call-by-value.

In[275]:= x
Out[275]= {1, 2}

Which method should be used would depend on whether or not altering the value of x was a desired outcome.

Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research






  • Prev by Date: Re: PolynomialMod
  • Next by Date: Re: Column vectors should be interpreted as simple lists where
  • Previous by thread: Re: execution model: Function vs. delayed execution
  • Next by thread: Simple OpenCL program in Mathematica