I want to write a script experiment.m that will call a complicated function called encoder(...).
encoder will involve a lot of settings that experiment.m is going to choose at runtime.
At some point in experiment.m, the settings which encoder will use are created as variables (in this example there are two, in real life there can be dozens):
blocklength = [some derivation];
bitdepth = [some derivation];
I create a struct that stores these values under their names:
encoder_settings = struct();
encoder_settings.blocklength = blocklength;
encoder_settings.bitdepth = bitdepth;
And I write my encoder function like this:
function encoder_out = encoder(data, encoder_settings)
blocklength = encoder_settings.blocklength;
bitdepth = encoder_settings.bitdepth;
[...]
end
This works fine for code of moderate complexity, but after a while it becomes difficult to maintain the create-struct/load-struct blocks.
Alternatives I can think of don't seem great either:
encoder is usually very complex and calling the variables directly from the struct in its body makes the code difficult to read.
Do it dynamically using eval like this:
for s = fieldnames(my_struct)' eval([s{:},' = my_struct.', s{:}, ';']); end
I like using objects for this. But structs can work fine, too. Objects have the advantage that you can do input validation on their properties, too.
Use short names for the objects/structs themselves, and keep all your variables in objects in the calling function right off the bat, instead of storing them in plain local variables first and then copying them in to an object or struct for the transfer between the two functions.
And if you're using objects, you can make the functions be methods on your objects, to organize them further.
Related
In my Simulink Model I have a MATLAB function, this_function, which uses as one parameter the name of the Simulink Model, modelname. The name is defined in an extra parameter file with all other parameters needed. Loading the parameter file loads modelname into the workspace. The problem is now, that this_function can't access modelname in the workspace and therefore the model doesn't run.
I tried to use modelname as a constant input source for this_function, which I used as a work-around previously, but Simulink doesn't accept chars/strings as signals. Furthermore does setting modelname to global not work as well.
Is there a way to keep modelname in the parameter file instead of writing it directly into this_function?
Simulink does not support strings. Like, anywhere. It really sucks and I don't know why this limitation exists - it seems like a pretty horrible design choice to me.
I've found the following workarounds for this limitation:
Dirty Casting
Let
function yourFun(num_param1, num_param2, ..., str_param);
be your MATLAB function inside the Simulink block, with str_param the parameter you want to be a string, and num_param[X] any other parameters. Then pass the string signal to the function like so:
yourFun(3, [4 5], ..., 'the_string'+0);
Note that '+0' at the end; that is shorthand for casting a string to an array of integers, corresponding to the ASCII codes of each character in the string. Then, inside the function, you could get the string back by doing the inverse:
model = char(str_param);
but usually that results in problems later on (strcmp not supported, upper/lower not supported, etc.). So, you could do string comparisons (and similar operations) in a similar fashion:
isequal(str_param, 'comparison'+0);
This has all the benefits of strings, without actually using strings.
Of course, the '+0' trick can be used inside constant blocks as well, model callbacks to convert workspace variables on preLoad, etc.
Note that support for variable size arrays must be enabled in the MATLAB function.
Fixed Option Set
Instead of passing in a string, you can pass a numeric scalar, which corresponds to a selection in a list of fixed, hardcoded options:
function yourFun(..., option)
...
switch (option)
case 1
model = 'model_idealised';
case 2
model = 'model_with_drag';
case 3
model = 'model_fullscale';
otherwise
error('Invalid option.');
end
...
end
Both alternatives are not ideal, both are contrived, and both are prone to error and/or have reusability and scalability problems. It's pretty hopeless.
Simulink should start supporting strings natively, I mean, come on.
I am writing a signal processing program using matlab. I know there are two types of float-pointing variables, single and double. Considering the memory usage, I want my code to work with only single type variable when the system's memory is not large, while it can also be adapted to work with double type variables when necessary, without significant modification (simple and light modification before running is OK, i.e., I don't need runtime-check technique). I know this can be done by macro in C and by template in C++. I don't find practical techniques which can do this in matlab. Do you have any experience with this?
I have a simple idea that I define a global string containing "single" or "double", then I pass this string to any memory allocation method called in my code to indicate what type I need. I think this can work, I just want to know which technique you guys use and is widely accepted.
I cannot see how a template would help here. The type of c++ templates are still determined in compile time (std::vector vec ...). Also note that Matlab defines all variables as double by default unless something else is stated. You basically want runtime checks for your code. I can think of one solution as using a function with a persistent variable. The variable is set once per run. When you generate variables you would then have to generate all variables you want to have as float through this function. This will slow down assignment though, since you have to call a function to assign variables.
This example is somehow an implementation of the singleton pattern (but not exactly). The persistent variable type is set at the first use and cannot change later in the program (assuming that you do not do anything stupid as clearing the variable explicitly). I would recommend to go for hardcoding single in case performance is an issue, instead of having runtime checks or assignment functions or classes or what you can come up with.
function c = assignFloat(a,b)
persistent type;
if (isempty(type) & nargin==2)
type = b;
elseif (isempty(type))
type = 'single';
% elseif(nargin==2), error('Do not set twice!') % Optional code, imo unnecessary.
end
if (strcmp(type,'single'))
c = single(a);
return;
end
c = double(a);
end
Prologue:
I am in the process of designing/prototyping a piece of code in Matlab.
As at the moment it is not clear to me which matrices should be returned by my functions, I chose, as a general approach, to bind my returned values in containers.Map (as I would do e.g. in python).
Hence, the general setting is
function output = myfoo(args)
output = containers.Map;
...some stuff
output('outname1') = ...
output('outname2') = ...
end
this approach should have the advantage of allowing me to add more returned data without messing up the other code too much or break backwards compatibility.
Issue:
How to deal in a elegant way with matrix slicing?
Say that I need to do something like
output('outname1')(2:end) = ...
(which gives an error as two indexes are not allowed and a boring workaround like
temp = output('outname1')
temp(2:end) = ...
output('outname1') = temp
is required).
Question:
Is there a proficient way to deal with this, avoiding all this referencing/copying job?
No, there is no way to do it without a temporary variable. The only case in which a double index is valid in Matlab is for a cell array. In that case, you can use
output{...}(...)
However, in any other case, a double index results in an error.
function y = myfunc(param)
C = param.C;
L = param.L;
Kp = param.Kp;
Ki = param.Ki;
...
Is there a way to generalize the above code? I know how to generalize the structure access using fieldnames() and getfield(), but not how to set variables without calling eval() (which is evil).
for n = fieldnames(param)'
name = n{1};
value = param.(name);
do_something_with(name,value); % ????
never mind, I figured it out; this helper function works:
function vars_pull(s)
for n = fieldnames(s)'
name = n{1};
value = s.(name);
assignin('caller',name,value);
end
The only way to create a variable whose name is determined at run-time is to use a function like eval, evalin, feval, or assignin. (assignin is the least evil choice BTW, at least you don't need to convert your value to a string and back.)
However, I question why you want to do that, why not just access the values through the input structure as you need them. If you want to save typing (speaking from experience, as I am extremely lazy), I usually name my input parameter structure something short, like p. The throughout my code I just access the fields directly, (e.g. p.Kp, and after a while I don't even see the p. anymore.) This also makes it easy to pass the structure into subfunctions as needed.
You can use the excellent submission at FileExchange:
V2STRUCT - Pack & Unpack variables to & from structures with enhanced functionality
Here's a workaround: save the structure to a .mat file using the '-struct' option, and then immediately reload it. Here's an example for struct variable X:
save('deleteme.mat','-struct','X');
load('deleteme.mat');
delete('deleteme.mat');
It's kludgey, but actually pretty fast, at least with an SSD.
I've come into ownership of a bunch of MATLAB code and have noticed a bunch of "magic numbers" scattered about the code. Typically, I like to make those constants in languages like C, Ruby, PHP, etc. When Googling this problem, I found that the "official" way of having constants is to define functions that return the constant value. Seems kludgey, especially because MATLAB can be finicky when allowing more than one function per file.
Is this really the best option?
I'm tempted to use / make something like the C Preprocessor to do this for me. (I found that something called mpp was made by someone else in a similar predicament, but it looks abandoned. The code doesn't compile, and I'm not sure if it would meet my needs.)
Matlab has constants now. The newer (R2008a+) "classdef" style of Matlab OOP lets you define constant class properties. This is probably the best option if you don't require back-compatibility to old Matlabs. (Or, conversely, is a good reason to abandon back-compatibility.)
Define them in a class.
classdef MyConstants
properties (Constant = true)
SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 60*60;
DISTANCE_TO_MOON_KM = 384403;
end
end
Then reference them from any other code using dot-qualification.
>> disp(MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR)
3600
See the Matlab documentation for "Object-Oriented Programming" under "User Guide" for all the details.
There are a couple minor gotchas. If code accidentally tries to write to a constant, instead of getting an error, it will create a local struct that masks the constants class.
>> MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR
ans =
3600
>> MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 42
MyConstants =
SECONDS_PER_HOUR: 42
>> whos
Name Size Bytes Class Attributes
MyConstants 1x1 132 struct
ans 1x1 8 double
But the damage is local. And if you want to be thorough, you can protect against it by calling the MyConstants() constructor at the beginning of a function, which forces Matlab to parse it as a class name in that scope. (IMHO this is overkill, but it's there if you want it.)
function broken_constant_use
MyConstants(); % "import" to protect assignment
MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 42 % this bug is a syntax error now
The other gotcha is that classdef properties and methods, especially statics like this, are slow. On my machine, reading this constant is about 100x slower than calling a plain function (22 usec vs. 0.2 usec, see this question). If you're using a constant inside a loop, copy it to a local variable before entering the loop. If for some reason you must use direct access of constants, go with a plain function that returns the value.
For the sake of your sanity, stay away from the preprocessor stuff. Getting that to work inside the Matlab IDE and debugger (which are very useful) would require deep and terrible hacks.
I usually just define a variable with UPPER_CASE and place near the top of the file. But you have to take the responsibly of not changing its value.
Otherwise you can use MATLAB classes to define named constants.
MATLAB doesn't have an exact const equivalent. I recommend NOT using global for constants - for one thing, you need to make sure they are declared everywhere you want to use them. I would create a function that returns the value(s) you want. You might check out this blog post for some ideas.
You might some of these answers How do I create enumerated types in MATLAB? useful. But in short, no there is not a "one-line" way of specifying variables whose value shouldn't change after initial setting in MATLAB.
Any way you do it, it will still be somewhat of a kludge. In past projects, my approach to this was to define all the constants as global variables in one script file, invoke the script at the beginning of program execution to initialize the variables, and include "global MYCONST;" statements at the beginning of any function that needed to use MYCONST. Whether or not this approach is superior to the "official" way of defining a function to return a constant value is a matter of opinion that one could argue either way. Neither way is ideal.
My way of dealing with constants that I want to pass to other functions is to use a struct:
% Define constants
params.PI = 3.1416;
params.SQRT2 = 1.414;
% Call a function which needs one or more of the constants
myFunction( params );
It's not as clean as C header files, but it does the job and avoids MATLAB globals. If you wanted the constants all defined in a separate file (e.g., getConstants.m), that would also be easy:
params = getConstants();
Don't call a constant using myClass.myconst without creating an instance first! Unless speed is not an issue. I was under the impression that the first call to a constant property would create an instance and then all future calls would reference that instance, (Properties with Constant Values), but I no longer believe that to be the case. I created a very basic test function of the form:
tic;
for n = 1:N
a = myObj.field;
end
t = toc;
With classes defined like:
classdef TestObj
properties
field = 10;
end
end
or:
classdef TestHandleObj < handle
properties
field = 10;
end
end
or:
classdef TestConstant
properties (Constant)
field = 10;
end
end
For different cases of objects, handle-objects, nested objects etc (as well as assignment operations). Note that these were all scalars; I didn't investigate arrays, cells or chars. For N = 1,000,000 my results (for total elapsed time) were:
Access(s) Assign(s) Type of object/call
0.0034 0.0042 'myObj.field'
0.0033 0.0042 'myStruct.field'
0.0034 0.0033 'myVar' //Plain old workspace evaluation
0.0033 0.0042 'myNestedObj.obj.field'
0.1581 0.3066 'myHandleObj.field'
0.1694 0.3124 'myNestedHandleObj.handleObj.field'
29.2161 - 'TestConstant.const' //Call directly to class(supposed to be faster)
0.0034 - 'myTestConstant.const' //Create an instance of TestConstant
0.0051 0.0078 'TestObj > methods' //This calls get and set methods that loop internally
0.1574 0.3053 'TestHandleObj > methods' //get and set methods (internal loop)
I also created a Java class and ran a similar test:
12.18 17.53 'jObj.field > in matlab for loop'
0.0043 0.0039 'jObj.get and jObj.set loop N times internally'
The overhead in calling the Java object is high, but within the object, simple access and assign operations happen as fast as regular matlab objects. If you want reference behavior to boot, Java may be the way to go. I did not investigate object calls within nested functions, but I've seen some weird things. Also, the profiler is garbage when it comes to a lot of this stuff, which is why I switched to manually saving the times.
For reference, the Java class used:
public class JtestObj {
public double field = 10;
public double getMe() {
double N = 1000000;
double val = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++) {
val = this.field;
}
return val;
}
public void setMe(double val) {
double N = 1000000;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++){
this.field = val;
}
}
}
On a related note, here's a link to a table of NIST constants: ascii table and a matlab function that returns a struct with those listed values: Matlab FileExchange
I use a script with simple constants in capitals and include teh script in other scripts tr=that beed them.
LEFT = 1;
DOWN = 2;
RIGHT = 3; etc.
I do not mind about these being not constant. If I write "LEFT=3" then I wupold be plain stupid and there is no cure against stupidity anyway, so I do not bother.
But I really hate the fact that this method clutters up my workspace with variables that I would never have to inspect. And I also do not like to use sothing like "turn(MyConstants.LEFT)" because this makes longer statements like a zillion chars wide, making my code unreadible.
What I would need is not a variable but a possibility to have real pre-compiler constants. That is: strings that are replaced by values just before executing the code. That is how it should be. A constant should not have to be a variable. It is only meant to make your code more readible and maintainable. MathWorks: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. It can't be that hard to implement this. . .