Perform localized, evaluation-leak free replacements
$begingroup$
Consider the following expression:
expr = Hold[
{
f[
{1, {Print@1}}
],
g[
{{{Print@1}}}
]
}
];
I'm looking for a way to apply a replacement rule to the contents of all expressions with head f. To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to replace Print by Echo, but only inside f.
Restrictions: I have no knowledge about the exact structure around and inside f - there could be more or less nesting going on. This means the replacement rule can't capture the wrapper with Hold attribute, nor can it capture the individual parts of f[…]. (And the evaluation of Print should be prevented of course)
evaluation replacement hold
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following expression:
expr = Hold[
{
f[
{1, {Print@1}}
],
g[
{{{Print@1}}}
]
}
];
I'm looking for a way to apply a replacement rule to the contents of all expressions with head f. To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to replace Print by Echo, but only inside f.
Restrictions: I have no knowledge about the exact structure around and inside f - there could be more or less nesting going on. This means the replacement rule can't capture the wrapper with Hold attribute, nor can it capture the individual parts of f[…]. (And the evaluation of Print should be prevented of course)
evaluation replacement hold
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following expression:
expr = Hold[
{
f[
{1, {Print@1}}
],
g[
{{{Print@1}}}
]
}
];
I'm looking for a way to apply a replacement rule to the contents of all expressions with head f. To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to replace Print by Echo, but only inside f.
Restrictions: I have no knowledge about the exact structure around and inside f - there could be more or less nesting going on. This means the replacement rule can't capture the wrapper with Hold attribute, nor can it capture the individual parts of f[…]. (And the evaluation of Print should be prevented of course)
evaluation replacement hold
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
Consider the following expression:
expr = Hold[
{
f[
{1, {Print@1}}
],
g[
{{{Print@1}}}
]
}
];
I'm looking for a way to apply a replacement rule to the contents of all expressions with head f. To give a more concrete example, let's say I want to replace Print by Echo, but only inside f.
Restrictions: I have no knowledge about the exact structure around and inside f - there could be more or less nesting going on. This means the replacement rule can't capture the wrapper with Hold attribute, nor can it capture the individual parts of f[…]. (And the evaluation of Print should be prevented of course)
evaluation replacement hold
evaluation replacement hold
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
edited Jan 6 at 20:07
Kuba♦
104k12203522
104k12203522
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
asked Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
6,6651930
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's a way making use of Block to cause f to be inert:
Block[{f},
SetAttributes[f, HoldAllComplete];
expr /. f[args__] :>
RuleCondition[f[args] /. Print -> Echo]
]
Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}]
Note of course that this only works if you have a pattern of the form _Symbol[...]
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Edit: For most situations, @Kuba's answer is better]
I can think of one (ugly) way to do it:
Attributes[myHold] = {HoldAll};
expr /.
f[args__] :> With[
{res = myHold[args] /. Print -> Echo},
f @@ res /; True
] /.
HoldPattern[f_ @@ myHold[args__]] :> f[args]
(* Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}] *)
The idea is to wrap the contents of f inside a function with HoldAll attribute (not Hold, to be able to identify it uniquely later on). In a first step, the expression is returned with myHold[…] still in place. In a second round of replacements, myHold is stripped out again.
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can writevanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].
$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alternatively:
expr /.
foo_f :> RuleCondition[Hold[foo] /. Print -> Echo] /.
Hold[foo_f] :> foo
We can safely perform the second replacement because we just wrapped every f[..] with Hold.
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern_fhas to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost
$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f188887%2fperform-localized-evaluation-leak-free-replacements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here's a way making use of Block to cause f to be inert:
Block[{f},
SetAttributes[f, HoldAllComplete];
expr /. f[args__] :>
RuleCondition[f[args] /. Print -> Echo]
]
Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}]
Note of course that this only works if you have a pattern of the form _Symbol[...]
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a way making use of Block to cause f to be inert:
Block[{f},
SetAttributes[f, HoldAllComplete];
expr /. f[args__] :>
RuleCondition[f[args] /. Print -> Echo]
]
Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}]
Note of course that this only works if you have a pattern of the form _Symbol[...]
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here's a way making use of Block to cause f to be inert:
Block[{f},
SetAttributes[f, HoldAllComplete];
expr /. f[args__] :>
RuleCondition[f[args] /. Print -> Echo]
]
Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}]
Note of course that this only works if you have a pattern of the form _Symbol[...]
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
$endgroup$
Here's a way making use of Block to cause f to be inert:
Block[{f},
SetAttributes[f, HoldAllComplete];
expr /. f[args__] :>
RuleCondition[f[args] /. Print -> Echo]
]
Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}]
Note of course that this only works if you have a pattern of the form _Symbol[...]
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
answered Jan 5 at 18:38
b3m2a1b3m2a1
27.1k257156
27.1k257156
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Edit: For most situations, @Kuba's answer is better]
I can think of one (ugly) way to do it:
Attributes[myHold] = {HoldAll};
expr /.
f[args__] :> With[
{res = myHold[args] /. Print -> Echo},
f @@ res /; True
] /.
HoldPattern[f_ @@ myHold[args__]] :> f[args]
(* Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}] *)
The idea is to wrap the contents of f inside a function with HoldAll attribute (not Hold, to be able to identify it uniquely later on). In a first step, the expression is returned with myHold[…] still in place. In a second round of replacements, myHold is stripped out again.
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can writevanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].
$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Edit: For most situations, @Kuba's answer is better]
I can think of one (ugly) way to do it:
Attributes[myHold] = {HoldAll};
expr /.
f[args__] :> With[
{res = myHold[args] /. Print -> Echo},
f @@ res /; True
] /.
HoldPattern[f_ @@ myHold[args__]] :> f[args]
(* Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}] *)
The idea is to wrap the contents of f inside a function with HoldAll attribute (not Hold, to be able to identify it uniquely later on). In a first step, the expression is returned with myHold[…] still in place. In a second round of replacements, myHold is stripped out again.
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can writevanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].
$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
[Edit: For most situations, @Kuba's answer is better]
I can think of one (ugly) way to do it:
Attributes[myHold] = {HoldAll};
expr /.
f[args__] :> With[
{res = myHold[args] /. Print -> Echo},
f @@ res /; True
] /.
HoldPattern[f_ @@ myHold[args__]] :> f[args]
(* Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}] *)
The idea is to wrap the contents of f inside a function with HoldAll attribute (not Hold, to be able to identify it uniquely later on). In a first step, the expression is returned with myHold[…] still in place. In a second round of replacements, myHold is stripped out again.
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
$endgroup$
[Edit: For most situations, @Kuba's answer is better]
I can think of one (ugly) way to do it:
Attributes[myHold] = {HoldAll};
expr /.
f[args__] :> With[
{res = myHold[args] /. Print -> Echo},
f @@ res /; True
] /.
HoldPattern[f_ @@ myHold[args__]] :> f[args]
(* Hold[{f[{1, {Echo[1]}}], g[{{{Print[1]}}}]}] *)
The idea is to wrap the contents of f inside a function with HoldAll attribute (not Hold, to be able to identify it uniquely later on). In a first step, the expression is returned with myHold[…] still in place. In a second round of replacements, myHold is stripped out again.
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
edited Jan 7 at 9:20
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
answered Jan 5 at 16:56
Lukas LangLukas Lang
6,6651930
6,6651930
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can writevanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].
$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can writevanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].
$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
2
2
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can write
vanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
$begingroup$
+1. If we use the vanishing macro defined in (43096), we can write
vanishing[{h}, expr /. x_f :> RuleCondition[h[x] /. Print -> Echo]].$endgroup$
– WReach
Jan 5 at 18:16
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alternatively:
expr /.
foo_f :> RuleCondition[Hold[foo] /. Print -> Echo] /.
Hold[foo_f] :> foo
We can safely perform the second replacement because we just wrapped every f[..] with Hold.
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern_fhas to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost
$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alternatively:
expr /.
foo_f :> RuleCondition[Hold[foo] /. Print -> Echo] /.
Hold[foo_f] :> foo
We can safely perform the second replacement because we just wrapped every f[..] with Hold.
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern_fhas to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost
$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Alternatively:
expr /.
foo_f :> RuleCondition[Hold[foo] /. Print -> Echo] /.
Hold[foo_f] :> foo
We can safely perform the second replacement because we just wrapped every f[..] with Hold.
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
$endgroup$
Alternatively:
expr /.
foo_f :> RuleCondition[Hold[foo] /. Print -> Echo] /.
Hold[foo_f] :> foo
We can safely perform the second replacement because we just wrapped every f[..] with Hold.
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
edited Jan 7 at 8:59
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
answered Jan 6 at 20:04
Kuba♦Kuba
104k12203522
104k12203522
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern_fhas to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost
$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern_fhas to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost
$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern
_f has to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
+1 - In general, this is definitely better than my solution - the only potential issue is the fact that the pattern
_f has to be written twice - so for complex patterns, this might lead to some code-duplication/performance cost$endgroup$
– Lukas Lang
Jan 7 at 9:18
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
$begingroup$
@LukasLang yes, consider this a quick solution to a specific problem. In general something like b3m2a1 shows is needed or a dummy vanishing head.
$endgroup$
– Kuba♦
Jan 7 at 9:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f188887%2fperform-localized-evaluation-leak-free-replacements%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
