다음에 대한 결과:
Untapped Potential for Output-arguments Block
MATLAB has a very powerful feature in its arguments blocks. For example, the following code for a function (or method):
- clearly outlines all the possible inputs
- provides default values for each input
- will produce auto-complete suggestions while typing in the Editor (and Command Window in newer versions)
- checks each input against validation functions to enforce size, shape (e.g., column vs. row vector), type, and other options (e.g., being a member of a set)
function [out] = sample_fcn(in)
arguments(Input)
in.x (:, 1) = []
in.model_type (1, 1) string {mustBeMember(in.model_type, ...
["2-factor", "3-factor", "4-factor"])} = "2-factor"
in.number_of_terms (1, 1) {mustBeMember(in.number_of_terms, 1:5)} = 1
in.normalize_fit (1, 1) logical = false
end
% function logic ...
end
If you do not already use the arguments block for function (or method) inputs, I strongly suggest that you try it out.
The point of this post, though, is to suggest improvements for the output-arguments block, as it is not nearly as powerful as its input-arguments counterpart. I have included two function examples: the first can work in MATLAB while the second does not, as it includes suggestions for improvements. Commentary specific to each function is provided completely before the code. While this does necessitate navigating back and forth between functions and text, this provides for an easy comparison between the two functions which is my main goal.
Current Implementation
The input-arguments block for sample_fcn begins the function and has already been discussed. A simple output-arguments block is also included. I like to use a single output so that additional fields may be added at a later point. Using this approach simplifies future development, as the function signature, wherever it may be used, does not need to be changed. I can simply add another output field within the function and refer to that additional field wherever the function output is used.
Before beginning any logic, sample_fcn first assigns default values to four fields of out. This is a simple and concise way to ensure that the function will not error when returning early.
The function then performs two checks. The first is for an empty input (x) vector. If that is the case, nothing needs to be done, as the function simply returns early with the default output values that happen to apply to the inability to fit any data.
The second check is for edge cases for which input combinations do not work. In this case, the status is updated, but default values for all other output fields (which are already assigned) still apply, so no additional code is needed.
Then, the function performs the fit based on the specified model_type. Note that an otherwise case is not needed here, since the argument validation for model_type would not allow any other value.
At this point, the total_error is calculated and a check is then made to determine if it is valid. If not, the function again returns early with another specific status value.
Finally, the R^2 value is calculated and a fourth check is performed. If this one fails, another status value is assigned with an early return.
If the function has passed all the checks, then a set of assertions ensure that each of the output fields are valid. In this case, there are eight specific checks, two for each field.
If all of the assertions also pass, then the final (successful) status is assigned and the function returns normally.
function [out] = sample_fcn(in)
arguments(Input)
in.x (:, 1) = []
in.model_type (1, 1) string {mustBeMember(in.model_type, ...
["2-factor", "3-factor", "4-factor"])} = "2-factor"
in.number_of_terms (1, 1) {mustBeMember(in.number_of_terms, 1:5)} = 1
in.normalize_fit (1, 1) logical = false
end
arguments(Output)
out struct
end
%%
out.fit = [];
out.total_error = [];
out.R_squared = NaN;
out.status = "Fit not possible for supplied inputs.";
%%
if isempty(in.x)
return
end
%%
if ((in.model_type == "2-factor") && (in.number_of_terms == 5)) || ... % other possible logic
out.status = "Specified combination of model_type and number_of_terms is not supported.";
return
end
%%
switch in.model_type
case "2-factor"
out.fit = % code for 2-factor fit
case "3-factor"
out.fit = % code for 3-factor fit
case "4-factor"
out.fit = % code for 4-factor fit
end
%%
out.total_error = % calculation of error
if ~isfinite(out.total_error)
out.status = "The total_error could not be calculated.";
return
end
%%
out.R_squared = % calculation of R^2
if out.R_squared > 1
out.status = "The R^2 value is out of bounds.";
return
end
%%
assert(iscolumn(out.fit), "The fit vector is not a column vector.");
assert(size(out.fit) == size(in.x), "The fit vector is not the same size as the input x vector.");
assert(isscalar(out.total_error), "The total_error is not a scalar.");
assert(isfinite(out.total_error), "The total_error is not finite.");
assert(isscalar(out.R_squared), "The R^2 value is not a scalar.");
assert(isfinite(out.R_squared), "The R^2 value is not finite.");
assert(isscalar(out.status), "The status is not a scalar.");
assert(isstring(out.status), "The status is not a string.");
%%
out.status = "The fit was successful.";
end
Potential Implementation
The second function, sample_fcn_output_arguments, provides essentially the same functionality in about half the lines of code. It is also much clearer with respect to the output. As a reminder, this function structure does not currently work in MATLAB, but hopefully it will in the not-too-distant future.
This function uses the same input-arguments block, which is then followed by a comparable output-arguments block. The first unsupported feature here is the use of name-value pairs for outputs. I would much prefer to make these assignments here rather than immediately after the block as in the sample_fcn above, which necessitates four more lines of code.
The mustBeSameSize validation function that I use for fit does not exist, but I really think it should; I would use it a lot. In this case, it provides a very succinct way of ensuring that the function logic did not alter the size of the fit vector from what is expected.
The mustBeFinite validation function for out.total_error does not work here simply because of the limitation on name-value pairs; it does work for regular outputs.
Finally, the assignment of default values to output arguments is not supported.
The next three sections of sample_fcn_output_arguments match those of sample_fcn: check if x is empty, check input combinations, and perform fit logic. Following that, though, the functions diverge heavily, as you might expect. The two checks for total_error and R^2 are not necessary, as those are covered by the output-arguments block. While there is a slight difference, in that the specific status values I assigned in sample_fcn are not possible, I would much prefer to localize all these checks in the arguments block, as is already done for input arguments.
Furthermore, the entire section of eight assertions in sample_fcn is removed, as, again, that would be covered by the output-arguments block.
This function ends with the same status assignment. Again, this is not exactly the same as in sample_fcn, since any failed assertion would prevent that assignment. However, that would also halt execution, so it is a moot point.
function [out] = sample_fcn_output_arguments(in)
arguments(Input)
in.x (:, 1) = []
in.model_type (1, 1) string {mustBeMember(in.model_type, ...
["2-factor", "3-factor", "4-factor"])} = "2-factor"
in.number_of_terms (1, 1) {mustBeMember(in.number_of_terms, 1:5)} = 1
in.normalize_fit (1, 1) logical = false
end
arguments(Output)
out.fit (:, 1) {mustBeSameSize(out.fit, in.x)} = []
out.total_error (1, 1) {mustBeFinite(out.total_error)} = []
out.R_squared (1, 1) {mustBeLessThanOrEqual(out.R_squared, 1)} = NaN
out.status (1, 1) string = "Fit not possible for supplied inputs."
end
%%
if isempty(in.x)
return
end
%%
if ((in.model_type == "2-factor") && (in.number_of_terms == 5)) || ... % other possible logic
out.status = "Specified combination of model_type and number_of_terms is not supported.";
return
end
%%
switch in.model_type
case "2-factor"
out.fit = % code for 2-factor fit
case "3-factor"
out.fit = % code for 3-factor fit
case "4-factor"
out.fit = % code for 4-factor fit
end
%%
out.status = "The fit was successful.";
end
Final Thoughts
There is a significant amount of unrealized potential for the output-arguments block. Hopefully what I have provided is helpful for continued developments in this area.
What are your thoughts? How would you improve arguments blocks for outputs (or inputs)? If you do not already use them, I hope that you start to now.
w = logspace(-1,3,100);
[m,p] = bode(tf(1,[1 1]),w);
size(m)
and therefore plotting requires an explicit squeeze (or rehape, or colon)
% semilogx(w,squeeze(db(m)))
Similarly, I'm using page* functions more regularly and am now generating 3D results whereas my old code would generate 2D. For example
x = [1;1];
theta = reshape(0:.1:2*pi,1,1,[]);
Z = [cos(theta), sin(theta);-sin(theta),cos(theta)];
y = pagemtimes(Z,x);
Now, plotting requires squeezing the inputs
% plot(squeeze(theta),squeeze(y))
Would there be any drawbacks to having plot, et. al., automagically apply squeeze to its inputs?
I would like to propose the creation of MATLAB EduHub, a dedicated channel within the MathWorks community where educators, students, and professionals can share and access a wealth of educational material that utilizes MATLAB. This platform would act as a central repository for articles, teaching notes, and interactive learning modules that integrate MATLAB into the teaching and learning of various scientific fields.
Key Features:
1. Resource Sharing: Users will be able to upload and share their own educational materials, such as articles, tutorials, code snippets, and datasets.
2. Categorization and Search: Materials can be categorized for easy searching by subject area, difficulty level, and MATLAB version..
3. Community Engagement: Features for comments, ratings, and discussions to encourage community interaction.
4. Support for Educators: Special sections for educators to share teaching materials and track engagement.
Benefits:
- Enhanced Educational Experience: The platform will enrich the learning experience through access to quality materials.
- Collaboration and Networking: It will promote collaboration and networking within the MATLAB community.
- Accessibility of Resources: It will make educational materials available to a wider audience.
By establishing MATLAB EduHub, I propose a space where knowledge and experience can be freely shared, enhancing the educational process and the MATLAB community as a whole.
In the past year, we've witnessed an exponential growth of ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools. AI has quickly become a transformative force across industries, from tech giants to small startups, and even community sites like ours. For instance, Stack Overflow announced its plan to leverage AI tools to draft a question or tag content; Quora built a ChatGPT bot to answer questions; and GitHub is piloting the AI tool for personalized content.
This trend in the community landscape makes me wonder what MATLAB Central community, especially in MATLAB Answers, can do to integrate AI and enhance the community.
Share with us your ideas in the comment session. Ideally one comment per idea, so that others can vote on a secific idea or have deeper discussions about it.
This is the 6th installment of the wish-list and bug report thread.
This topic is the follow on to the first Wish-list for MATLAB Answer sections and second MATLAB Answers Wish-list #2 (and bug reports). The third started out as New design of the forum - grey on white and the fourth and fifth also grew so large they are slow to load and navigate.
Same idea as the previous ones: one wish (or bug report) per answer, so that people can vote their wishes.
What should you post where?
Next Gen threads (#1): features that would break compatibility with previous versions, but would be nice to have
@anyone posting a new thread when the last one gets too large (about 50 answers seems a reasonable limit per thread), please update this list in all last threads. (if you don't have editing privileges, just post a comment asking someone to do the edit)
This is the 5th installment of the wish-list and bug report thread.
This topic is the follow on to the first Wish-list for MATLAB Answer sections and second MATLAB Answers Wish-list #2 (and bug reports). The third started out as New design of the forum - grey on white and the fourth MATLAB Answers Wish-list #4 (and bug reports) is also growing so large it is slow to load and navigate.
Same idea as the previous ones: one wish (or bug report) per answer, so that people can vote their wishes.
What should you post where?
Next Gen threads (#1): features that would break compatibility with previous versions, but would be nice to have
@anyone posting a new thread when the last one gets too large (about 50 answers seems a reasonable limit per thread), please update this list in all last threads. (if you don't have editing privileges, just post a comment asking someone to do the edit)
What should you post where?
Next Gen threads (#1): features that would break compatibility with previous versions, but would be nice to have
@anyone posting a new thread when the last one gets too large (about 50 answers seems a reasonable limit per thread), please update this list in all last threads. (if you don't have editing privileges, just post a comment asking someone to do the edit)
This topic is for features you would like to see for the MATLAB Answers facility itself, and also for bug reports about the MATLAB Answers facility.
This topic is the follow on to the first Wish-list for MATLAB Answer sections and second MATLAB Answers Wish-list #2 (and bug reports). Those grew large enough to become unwieldy; and Mathworks has made enough changes to make a number of the past points no longer of relevance. More recently there was the limited purpose New design of the forum - grey on white which turned into a bug and wish list; I have renamed that for continuity.
I suggest one wish (or bug report) per answer, so that people can vote their wishes.
I've opened MATLAB Answers this morning and found the new design.
The field for typing the "Body" does not consider the font settings of my browser anymore, such that my preference of sans-serif fonts is ignored. In addition the text color is a medium gray, which is hard to read for me due to the too light contrast.
Blank lines in the code let two separate code boxes appear. This makes almost all code, I've posted in the forum, invalid. It has been discussed repeatedly, that blank lines in the code confuse the indentation of the display in the forum and that this is a really bad idea. But instead of improving this, it is made severely worse now.
The new design contains even more white space, such that standard questions cannot be answered without extensive vertical scrolling. It is a very bad drawback, that I cannot see the question while I type the answer.
There is still no suggestion to use a proper code formatting, such that I have to spend 20% of my forum time typing corresponding comments as before.
But I'm coming back to the most important problem for me: It is a physical problem for me to read the low contrast grey on white text. Does anybody know a tweak or CSS trick to increase the readability?
TMW, please take into account that this new design is physically hard to read for people without young and 100% perfect eyes. This is very annoying for me.
Splitting code blocks at white lines is simply a bug. I cannot imagine why this error has not been detected before the new design has been published. The argument, that TMW is extremely conservative with changes in the forum to ensure a stability does not convince me anymore.
[EDITED] The box around the thread, the preview box, the boxes for preformatted text and code have a grey background now. So some text is even medium grey on light grey.
I'd be glad if the designers refocus on the purpose of the forum. Whatever this purpose might be, the optical reception of the characters is fundamental.
This topic is for features you would like to see for the MATLAB Answers facility itself, and also for bug reports about the MATLAB Answers facility.
This topic is the follow on to the earlier Wish-list for MATLAB Answer sections. That topic grew large enough to become unwieldy; and Mathworks has made enough changes to make a number of the past points no longer of relevance. There was also a more limited purpose <http://uk.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/216662-new-design-of-the-forum-grey-on-white-wish-list-3-bug-reports
I suggest one wish (or bug report) per answer, so that people can vote their wishes.
This topic (which was not started by Mathworks) is for features you would like to see for this MATLAB Answers facility.
I suggest one wish per answer, so that people can vote for individual wishes.
What should you post where?
Next Gen threads (#1): features that would break compatibility with previous versions, but would be nice to have
@anyone posting a new thread when the last one gets too large (about 50 answers seems a reasonable limit per thread), please update this list in all last threads. (if you don't have editing privileges, just post a comment asking someone to do the edit)
