1
$\begingroup$

As most regular users, I have developed utility functions complementing the Wolfram language for frequent tasks.

In particular, I have variations on Cases (see example definitions below). But I have trouble to add to them the pattern transformation capabilities of Case, such as Cases[ {1,3,5,6}, a:_Integer?EvenQ :> a/2 /; (a>0)] because my current versions rely on Position, not on Cases. I usually can do what I want with my CaseMap function or other classical means at the expense of legibility and maintainability but I am also curious of the right way to construct such a pattern handling syntax.

CaseSort sorts specific elements disseminated in a structure

CaseSort[k_List, p_] := CaseSort[k, p, 1] CaseSort[k_List, p_, z__] := Module[{kb = k, csz}, MapThread[ (Part[kb, Sequence @@ #2] = #1 ) &, {Sort[ Extract[k, csz = Position[k, p, z]]], csz}]; kb]

CaseSortBy is a straightforward variation on it

CaseSortBy[k_List, f_, p_] := CaseSortBy[k, f, p, 1] CaseSortBy[k_List, f_, p_, z__] := Module[{kb = k, csz}, MapThread[ (Part[kb, Sequence @@ #2] = #1 ) &, {SortBy[ Extract[k, csz = Position[k, p, z]], f], csz}]; kb]

CaseMap is a cousin of MapAt and Replace 

CaseMap[f_, k_List, p_] := CaseMap[k, p, 1] CaseMap[f_, k_List, p_, z__] := Module[{kb = k, csz}, MapThread[ (Part[kb, Sequence @@ #2] = f[#1] ) &, {Extract[k, csz = Position[k, p, z]], csz}]; kb]

CaseMapIndexed allows to have the positional context of the element when modifying it.

CaseMapIndexed[f_, k_List, p_] := CaseMapIndexed[k, p, 1] CaseMapIndexed[f_, k_List, p_, z__] := Module[{kb = k, csz}, MapThread[ (Part[kb, Sequence @@ #2] = f[#1, #2] ) &, {Extract[k, csz = Position[k, p, z]], csz}]; kb]
Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So, how about writing another definition, e.g. CaseSort[list_List, r:(_Rule | _RuleDelayed)] := (* stuff *)? $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2015 at 9:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Could we start with one example, like CaseSort and with description what would you like to change there, or what is not ok from your point of view? $\endgroup$ Commented May 27, 2015 at 10:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Guesswhoitis. I have done that, and it works in elementary cases such as CaseSort but I somehow messed up when testing for and manipulating Condition and PatternTest. I will try to come up with a few clear examples of this. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2015 at 6:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Kuba that's fair. I will soon edit my question. But in the meantime, I think Mr.Wizard pointed out my main trouble: I would like "Indexed" versions of most of these functions, and ideally, I would like something like a IndexedPatternTest which would transmit the position of the matched pattern in the expression being scanned by Cases, Count, or Position, etc. as a second argument. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2015 at 7:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I think you are bumping up against the limitation described here:

I say this because I think you want a combination of Replace and Position in one step, but this is not directly possible. We can still do it in multiple steps however. For simplicity I shall assume any Condition expressions will appear on the left-hand side of the rule. This precludes the lhs :> Module[{vars}, rhs /; test] form which would require additional complication. With limited modification to your original code:

caseSort[k_List, p_] := caseSort[k, p, 1] caseSort[k_List, rule : (lhs_ -> _) | (lhs_ :> _), z__] := Module[{kb = k, pos = Position[k, lhs, z]}, MapThread[(Part[kb, Sequence @@ #2] = #1) &, {Sort @ Replace[Extract[k, pos], rule, {1}], pos}]; kb ]

Test:

caseSort[Reverse@Range@20, p_?OddQ /; PrimeQ[p] :> Pi*p] 
{20, 3 π, 18, 5 π, 16, 15, 14, 7 π, 12, 11 π, 10, 9, 8, 13 π, 6, 17 π, 4, 19 π, 2, 1}

A more radical departure from you code:

caseSort2[k_List, rule : (lhs_ -> rhs_) | (lhs_ :> rhs_), z__: {1}] := Module[{tag, main, cases, i = 1}, {main, {cases}} = Reap[Replace[k, lhs :> (Sow[rhs]; tag), z]]; cases = Sort[cases]; main /. tag :> cases[[i++]] ]

I do not claim that either of these functions is robust, e.g. concerning held expressions etc.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot. You are right on one of my motivations. This covers a large part of what I need. I made a prototype with Reap and Sow but it did not take advantage, as yours do, of the fact that the two Replace will change objects in the same order as we preserve the structure. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2015 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ Any hint or advice on how to properly handle the Heads->True / Level[0] options, even if I don't expect to need them myself ? $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2015 at 7:11
  • $\begingroup$ @ogerard (1) Order of replacement is unimportant unless you are using evaluation at the time of rule application; rather order of evaluation within the entire expression after replacement is complete is critical. This is true for Map as well. (2) Heads and levelspec should be able to be handled however you like, but how is that? Give me a description and I'll (try to) give you an implementation. $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2015 at 15:56

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.