It was suggested in this comment that there is a difference between how Matlab and Python pass around functions. From what I can tell by looking and using the two, there is no difference between the two, but maybe I'm missing something?
In Matlab, you would create a quick function handle like this:
fun = #(x) x.^2 + 1;
In Python, using a lambda function, you could create a similar function like this:
def fun(x):
return x^2
In both languages, it's possible to send the term 'fun' to another function as an argument - but the commenter I linked to insinuated that they are not the same and/or need to be used differently.
What am I missing?
The first comment seems to simply reiterate the idea that you can pass a MATLAB function handle as an argument (although the answer didn't state anything that would make me think otherwise). The second comment seemed to interpret this to mean that the first commenter thought that you couldn't do this in Python and responded to state that you can use either a lambda or pass the function directly.
Regardless, assuming that you use them correctly, a function handle in MATLAB is functionally equivalent to using either a lambda or function object as an input argument in Python.
In python, if you don't append the () to the end of the function, it doesn't execute the function and instead yields the function object which can then be passed to another function.
# Function which accepts a function as an input
def evalute(func, val)
# Execute the function that's passed in
return func(val)
# Standard function definition
def square_and_add(x):
return x**2 + 1
# Create a lambda function which does the same thing.
lambda_square_and_add = lambda x: x**2 + 1
# Now pass the function to another function directly
evaluate(square_and_add, 2)
# Or pass a lambda function to the other function
evaluate(lambda_square_and_add, 2)
In MATLAB, you have to use a function handle because MATLAB attempts to execute a function even if you omit the ().
function res = evaluate(func, val)
res = func(val)
end
function y = square_and_add(x)
y = x^2 + 1;
end
%// Will try to execute square_and_add with no inputs resulting in an error
evaluate(square_and_add)
%// Must use a function handle
evaluate(#square_and_add, 2)
local a = {}
function a:test1(value)
print(value)
end
local b = {}
function b:test2(v1, v2)
v2(100);
end
b:test2(_, a.test1)
Doesn't work. Value is nil. I could find a solution doing an encapsulation in an anonymous function
b:test2(variable, function(value) a:test1(value) end)
But I find it pretty bad mkay
What is the correct syntax ?
anotherObject:aFunction(variable, object.doStuff) is the correct syntax.
Using a colon : with a function is just syntactic sugar for a call or declaration with an implicit self parameter as the first argument. If you would like to follow the pattern you've shown in your example in a cleaner way, you could use a helper function.
local function bind(t, k)
return function(...) return t[k](t, ...) end
end
You then apply it like so.
anotherObject:aFunction(variable, bind(object, 'doStuff'))
Edit: I believe the solution to your problem will require binding at some level, without resorting to modifying the Lua interpreter or using a code translation step.
This is fundamentally because functions in Lua do not carry any information about their origin. I.e., tables do not inherently own the functions that they store.
For example, the following is perfectly legitimate Lua code.
function Circle:area() -- function Circle.area(self)
-- ...
end
-- Evaluate the function in the "area" slot with Square as the self parameter.
Circle.area(Square)
Of course, you could try a paradigm shift, but it may be too late for that if you're building an entire application based on the idea of functions being tied to the table that they have been indexed from, as you said.
Therefore, I propose the following crazy solution.
local mt = {}
function mt:__index(k)
local v = self._slots[k]
if v == nil then
-- Ascend the inheritance tree.
-- This has to be done with rawget all the way up,
-- otherwise inherited functions would be repeatedly bound.
local p = self
repeat
p = rawget(p, '_parent')
if not p then break end
v = p._slots[k]
until v
end
if type(v) == 'function' then
-- Return a self-bound version of the function.
return function(...) return v(self, ...) end
end
return v
end
function mt:__newindex(k, v)
self._slots[k] = v
end
--- Demo & Tests ---
local function Object(parent)
local o = setmetatable({_slots = {}}, mt)
if parent then rawset(o, '_parent', parent) end
return o
end
local o1 = Object()
local o2 = Object(o1)
assert(o1.abc == nil, 'o1.abc should be nil')
o1.abc = 3
assert(o1.abc == 3, 'o1.abc should be 3')
assert(o2.abc == 3, 'o2.abc should be 3, inherited from o1')
o2.abc = 7
assert(o2.abc == 7, 'o2.abc should be 7, overriding o1')
assert(o1.abc == 3, 'o1.abc should be 3, unaffected by o2 setter')
function o1:test(bar)
return self.abc + bar
end
assert(type(o1.test) == 'function', 'o1.test should be a function')
assert(type(o2.test) == 'function', 'o2.test should be a function, inherited from o1')
assert(o1.test(5) == 8, 'o1.test(5) should return 3 + 5 = 8')
assert(o2.test(11) == 18, 'o2.test(11) should return 7 + 11 = 18')
function o2:test2(fn)
return self.abc + fn(7)
end
assert(o2.test2(o1.test) == 17, 'o2.test2(o1.test) should return 7 + (3 + 7) = 17')
o2.test3 = o1._slots.test -- proper function copying
assert(o2.test3(11) == 18, 'o2.test3(5) should return 7 + 11 = 18')
o2.abc = nil
assert(o2.abc == 3, 'o2.abc should be 3 again, inherited from o1 after clearing')
o2.abc = false
assert(o2.abc == false, 'o2.abc should be false, __index needs to differentiate between nil and false')
This metatable will provide you with what you want, with inherited and bound functions to boot. You will just need to make sure that all of the tables that you want to follow this pattern also follow the method of object creation shown in the example code.
To explain, each table made in this way has any new assignment redirected into the _slots sub-table and any new retrieval checked up the _parent inheritance tree. If the type of the value is a function, then it returns a new closure with the original self that started the check bound to the function found.
Obviously, calling a function from one of these objects with the : colon syntax is going to be a silly idea, since it would evaluate to o.fn(o, o), and that is probably not what you want. Another caveat is that copying functions onto these objects, from these objects, will not work as expected. o1.newfn = o2.fn will put an o2 bound function into o1, which in turn will be re-bound to o1. The end result would be something like o2.fn(o2, o1). You will have to copy functions from the _slots table.
In conclusion: Even though this works, I would not personally recommend it in the long run, since it may be confusing to anyone used to how Lua works with tables, indexing, and functions, and there will be overhead. You might be able to do away with some it via memoizing the closures, but I'll leave that decision up to you. Good luck!
Object method declared with : needs object instance as the first parameter. It gets added automatically if you call it with :, but as you passed just a function pointer, you need to pass this as well. This means whenever you pass a function in some object somewhere, you also have to pass object instance. This works:
local a = {}
function a:test1(value)
print(value)
end
local b = {}
function b:test2(obj, v2)
v2(obj, 100); -- object instance is always the first param of a ":"-style func
end
b:test2(a, a.test1) -- passing object instance and a function
Building on #ryan-stein's neat bind() solution, in a module I've found this to be slightly more concise:
local m = {}
m.__index = m
m.word = 'bar'
function m:bind(fn)
return function(...) return self[fn](self, ...) end
end
function m:foo(fn)
print("Foo " .. self.word)
end
function m:start()
hs.timer.new(42, self:bind('foo'))
end
your code will be work. the reason Ryan has said.
I doubt that in the function anotherObject:aFunction(), you were using a wrong way to call the object.stuff.The correct way as this:
local a = {}
function a:test1()
print(1)
end
local b = {}
function b:test2(v1, v2)
v2();
end
b:test2(_, a.test1)
I have the following scenario. In myClass.m I have defined
classdef myClass
...
methods
function y = foo(this, x)
...
end
end
end
Then I execute
obj = myClass();
nargin(#obj.foo)
and get as a result -1 while I would expect 1. The function nonetheless accepts only one argument.
I actually want to pass the handle to another function (in which I don't have access) which checks the number of arguments and I want the check nargin(f)==1 to succeed. Is there a way to do that?
PS
I know that if I define the method as static I will get the correct result by calling nargin(#(x)Test.foo) but the method accesses class variables.
Even though this question got answered and accepted, I think it is worth to show a working approach, which works even without creating an instance of the class. Reference to metaclass: https://ch.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/metaclass.html
metaClass = ?myClass
numArgIn = zeros(length(metaClass.MethodList), 1);
names = strings(length(metaClass.MethodList), 1);
for i=1:length(metaClass.MethodList)
names(i) = string(metaClass.MethodList(i).Name);
numArgIn(i) = numel(metaClass.MethodList(i).InputNames);
end
disp(numArgIn(names=="foo"))
When you create a folder with the class and some modules, you can use the following one-liner notation:
nargin('#myClass/foo.m')
In the latter example, the file ending can be removed without effect.
I can no longer verify the validity of this answer. See more recent answer(s) and comments.
Original answer
I fixed the problem by defining my own wrapper something like
function y = mywrapper(f, x)
%MYWRAPPER nargin(#(x)mywrapper(f, x)) is 1 as it should be
y = f(x);
end
I realised that nargin(#(x)#obj.foo), also does what I wanted
I have defined an abstract base class measurementHandler < handle which defines the interface for all inherited classes. Two subclasses of this class are a < measurementHandler and b < measurementHandler.
I now have a function which should return a handle to an instance of either of these subclasses (depending on the function arguments) to it's caller. Consider something like this:
function returnValue = foobar(index)
if index == 0
returnValue = a();
else
returnValue = b();
end
end
This function is enclosed in a MATLAB Function block in Simulink (2013a). When I try to simulate the system, I get the following error:
Type name mismatch (a ~= b).
Can anybody suggest a workaround for this which still allows me to take advantage of OOP & inheritance when using Simulink?
This kind of pattern is possible in MATLAB Function block only if the "if" condition can be evaluated at compile time. The types cannot be switched at run-time. Can you make the index value a constant at the call site?
The main reason to use this pattern was to iterate over a measurementHandler Array, while these all can have custom implementations. I was able to do this by unrolling the loop with the coder.unroll directive. Example for the enclosing MTALAB Function block:
function result = handleAllTheMeasurements(someInputs)
%#codegen
for index = coder.unroll(1:2)
measurementHandler = foobar(index);
measurementHandler.handleMeasurement(someInputs);
end
result = something;
end
This way, the for loop gets unrolled at compile time and the return type of the function is well defined for each separate call.
I would like to know if it's possible to use a colon ":" as argument of a function.
Something like that:
function y=func(x)
if x is a colon
do this
else
do that
end
Also is it possible to pass the key work end as argument of a function, and also 1:end, 3:end-5, etc...
I doubt it's possible, but I would like to be sure.
Also, I get a weird error when I pass "1:end" as argument of a function, it produces no error, but inside the function, no argument is assigned (not even the other arguments). Do someone know what happens?
You can override both for your own classes:
classdef MyClass
properties(Access=public)
data
end
methods
function out = end(A,k,n)
disp(A);
disp(k);
disp(n);
out = [];
end
function B = subsref(A,S)
disp(S);
B = [];
end
end
end
As for functions, I never heard of such a functionality.
No, it's not possible to pass a colon as an argument (it doesn't make any sense).