# Unexpected behavior of anonymous function

1 visualizzazione (ultimi 30 giorni)
Khaled Hamed il 24 Gen 2013
The anonymous function k below behaves correcltly except for the last two cases k(1,1,:) and k(1,2,:), where it interprets the semicolon as a charcter (':'=58, 58^2=3364), while it should return the handle in the first case and error in the second. Any explanations?
>> k=@(varargin) cellfun(@(x) x^2,varargin)
k =
@(varargin)cellfun(@(x)x^2,varargin)
>> k(:)
ans =
@(varargin)cellfun(@(x)x^2,varargin)
>> k(1)
ans =
1
>> k(1,:)
ans =
@(varargin)cellfun(@(x)x^2,varargin)
>> k(1,2)
ans =
1 4
>> k(1,1,:)
ans =
1 1 3364
>> k(1,2,:)
ans =
1 4 3364
##### 3 CommentiMostra 1 commento meno recenteNascondi 1 commento meno recente
Sean de Wolski il 24 Gen 2013
@Cedric, apparently. I'm just puzzled by the discrepancy between the second and third dimension.
Cedric il 24 Gen 2013
Modificato: Cedric il 24 Gen 2013
@Sean: yes, it is as if when S.subs is larger than 2, subs are not treated the same way.. and it is not the position of ':' in the subs that matters:
>> k(:,1,2)
ans = 3364 1 4

Accedi per commentare.

### Risposta accettata

Steve Eddins il 24 Gen 2013
First, I would like to point out that k(1,1,:) is a valid expression for a subscripting operation on a variable called k, but it is not a valid expression for a call to a function called k.
In other words, you can't pass a "naked" colon as a function argument!
>> sin(:)
Undefined variable sin.
So k(:), k(1,:), k(1,1,:), and k(1,2,:) are all invalid ways to call a function (or a function handle).
The fact that MATLAB isn't just giving a quick error on these expressions is an artifact of the way function handle evaluation syntax using parentheses has been implemented. It's been implemented by overloading the parentheses syntax using subsref. By the time the subsref overload sees things, the "naked" colon has been converted to a character. Like everything else inside the parentheses, this character then gets treated as a function argument.
##### 1 CommentoMostra -1 commenti meno recentiNascondi -1 commenti meno recenti
Khaled Hamed il 24 Gen 2013
I do agree. It just seemed logical that k(:), k(1,:), k(1,1,:), and k(1,2,:) would be interpreted as indexing (the first three would work for a scalar, while the fourth would error).

Accedi per commentare.

### Più risposte (1)

Sean de Wolski il 24 Gen 2013
That certainly looks like obscure behavior.
##### 0 CommentiMostra -2 commenti meno recentiNascondi -2 commenti meno recenti

Accedi per commentare.

### Categorie

Scopri di più su Logical in Help Center e File Exchange

### Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by