eqn =
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?
The ability to plot multiple signals on a plot and then use the plot browser to interactively control which ones are displayed has been one of the most useful features of the plotting tools and many of my scripts embed the command to open it after results analysis and plotting. It's been removed in 2025A with the comment that the Property Inspector provides the alternative. It doesn't. Having to go back into the menu to select the plot edit features to get to the Property Inspector (which doesn't provide an efficient alternative to the plot browser) has made the workflow very inefficient. Please bring it back a.s.a.p. !!!!
Let's say MathWorks decides to create a MATLAB X release, which takes a big one-time breaking change that abandons back-compatibility and creates a more modern MATLAB language, ditching the unfortunate stuff that's around for historical reasons. What would you like to see in it?
I'm thinking stuff like syntax and semantics tweaks, changes to function behavior and interfaces in the standard library and Toolboxes, and so on.
(The "X" is for major version 10, like in "OS X". Matlab is still on version 9.x even though we use "R20xxa" release names now.)
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)
I've long used the Tensor Toolbox from Sandia in order to use tensors in Matlab, but recently found myself wanting to apply it on symbolic arguments, which don't appear supported. Some google-fu'ing resulted in (non-free) Tensorlab and some file-exchange entries of mixed quality. And of course, there's the recent tensorprod, which a) doesn't support symbolics and b) arguments aren't strictly tensors (rather "representations of tensors in a matrix type").
This all got me to thinking that it would be mighty nice to have general / native / comprehensive support for a tensor class in official Matlab - even if it were in a separate toolbox.
Speaking as someone with 31+ years of experience developing and using imshow, I want to advocate for retiring and replacing it.
The function imshow has behaviors and defaults that were appropriate for the MATLAB and computer monitors of the 1990s, but which are not the best choice for most image display situations in today's MATLAB. Also, the 31 years have not been kind to the imshow code base. It is a glitchy, hard-to-maintain monster.
My new File Exchange function, imview, illustrates the kind of changes that I think should be made. The function imview is a much better MATLAB graphics citizen and produces higher quality image display by default, and it dispenses with the whole fraught business of trying to resize the containing figure. Although this is an initial release that does not yet support all the useful options that imshow does, it does enough that I am prepared to stop using imshow in my own work.
The Image Processing Toolbox team has just introduced in R2024b a new image viewer called imageshow, but that image viewer is created in a special-purpose window. It does not satisfy the need for an image display function that works well with the axes and figure objects of the traditional MATLAB graphics system.
I have published a blog post today that describes all this in more detail. I'd be interested to hear what other people think.
Note: Yes, I know there is an Image Processing Toolbox function called imview. That one is a stub for an old toolbox capability that was removed something like 15+ years ago. The only thing the toolbox imview function does now is call error. I have just submitted a support request to MathWorks to remove this old stub.
Imagine you are developing a new toolbox for MATLAB. You have a folder full of a few .m files defining a bunch of functions and you are thinking 'This would be useful for others, I'm going to make it available to the world'
What process would you go through? What's the first thing you'd do?
I have my own opinions but don't want to pollute the start of the conversation :)
MATLAB FEX(MATLAB File Exchange) should support Markdown syntax for writing. In recent years, many open-source community documentation platforms, such as GitHub, have generally supported Markdown. MATLAB is also gradually improving its support for Markdown syntax. However, when directly uploading files to the MATLAB FEX community and preparing to write an overview, the outdated document format buttons are still present. Even when directly uploading a Markdown document, it cannot be rendered. We hope the community can support Markdown syntax!
BTW，I know that open-source Markdown writing on GitHub and linking to MATLAB FEX is feasible, but this is a workaround. It would be even better if direct native support were available.
It is time to support the cameraIntrinsics function to accept a 3-by-3 intrinsic matrix K as an input parameter for constructing the object. Currently, the built-in cameraIntrinsics function can only be constructed by explicitly specifying focalLength, principalPoint, and imageSize. This approach has drawbacks, as it is not very intuitive. In most application scenarios, using the intrinsic matrix
K=[fx,0,cx;
0,fy,cy;
0,0,1]
is much more straightforward and effective!
intrinsics = cameraIntrinsics(K)
In the past two years, large language models have brought us significant changes, leading to the emergence of programming tools such as GitHub Copilot, Tabnine, Kite, CodeGPT, Replit, Cursor, and many others. Most of these tools support code writing by providing auto-completion, prompts, and suggestions, and they can be easily integrated with various IDEs.
As far as I know, aside from the MATLAB-VSCode/MatGPT plugin, MATLAB lacks such AI assistant plugins for its native MATLAB-Desktop, although it can leverage other third-party plugins for intelligent programming assistance. There is hope for a native tool of this kind to be built-in.
Too small
22%
Just right
38%
Too large
40%
2648 Stimmen
In one of my MATLAB projects, I want to add a button to an existing axes toolbar. The function for doing this is axtoolbarbtn:
axtoolbarbtn(tb,style,Name=Value)
However, I have found that the existing interfaces and behavior make it quite awkward to accomplish this task.
Here are my observations.
Adding a Button to the Default Axes Toolbar Is Unsupported
plot(1:10)
ax = gca;
tb = ax.Toolbar
Calling axtoolbarbtn on ax results in an error:
>> axtoolbarbtn(tb,"state")
Error using axtoolbarbtn (line 77)
Modifying the default axes toolbar is not supported.
Default Axes Toolbar Can't Be Distinguished from an Empty Toolbar
The Children property of the default axes toolbar is empty. Thus, it appears programmatically to have no buttons, just like an empty toolbar created by axtoolbar.
cla
plot(1:10)
ax = gca;
tb = ax.Toolbar;
tb.Children
ans = 0x0 empty GraphicsPlaceholder array.
tb2 = axtoolbar(ax);
tb2.Children
ans = 0x0 empty GraphicsPlaceholder array.
A Workaround
An empty axes toolbar seems to have no use except to initalize a toolbar before immediately adding buttons to it. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that an axes toolbar that appears to be empty is really the default toolbar. While we can't add buttons to the default axes toolbar, we can create a new toolbar that has all the same buttons as the default one, using axtoolbar("default"). And then we can add buttons to the new toolbar.
That observation leads to this workaround:
tb = ax.Toolbar;
if isempty(tb.Children)
% Assume tb is the default axes toolbar. Recreate
% it with the default buttons so that we can add a new
% button.
tb = axtoolbar(ax,"default");
end
btn = axtoolbarbtn(tb);
% Then set up the button as desired (icon, callback,
% etc.) by setting its properties.
As workarounds go, it's not horrible. It just seems a shame to have to delete and then recreate a toolbar just to be able to add a button to it.
The worst part about the workaround is that it is so not obvious. It took me a long time of experimentation to figure it out, including briefly giving it up as seemingly impossible.
The documentation for axtoolbarbtn avoids the issue. The most obvious example to write for axtoolbarbtn would be the first thing every user of it will try: add a toolbar button to the toolbar that gets created automatically in every call to plot. The doc page doesn't include that example, of course, because it wouldn't work.
My Request
I like the axes toolbar concept and the axes interactivity that it promotes, and I think the programming interface design is mostly effective. My request to MathWorks is to modify this interface to smooth out the behavior discontinuity of the default axes toolbar, with an eye towards satisfying (and documenting) the general use case that I've described here.
One possible function design solution is to make the default axes toolbar look and behave like the toolbar created by axtoolbar("default"), so that it has Children and so it is modifiable.
I am curious as to how my goal can be accomplished in Matlab.
The present APP called "Matching Network Designer" works quite well, but it is limited to a single section of a "PI", a "TEE", or an "L" topology circuit.
This limits the bandwidth capability of the APP when the intended use is to create an amplifier design intended for wider bandwidth projects.
I am requesting that a "Broadband Matching Network Designer" APP be developed by you, the MathWorks support team.
One suggestion from me is to be able to cascade a second section (or "pole") to the first.
Then the resulting topology would be capable of achieving that wider bandwidth of the microwave amplifier project where it would be later used with the transistor output and input matching networks.
Instead of limiting the APP to a single frequency, the entire s parameter file would be used as an input.
The APP would convert the polar s parameters to rectangular scaler complex impedances that you already use.
At that point, having started out with the first initial center frequency, the other frequencies both greater than and less than the center would come into use by an optimization of the circuit elements.
I'm hoping that you will be able to take on this project.
I can include an attachment of such a Matching Network Designer APP that you presently have if you like.
That network is centered at 10 GHz.
Kimberly Renee Alvarez.
310-367-5768
Hello,
Now that the "Copilot+PC" (Windows ARM) laptops are rapidly increasing in market share (Microsoft Surface Laptop, Dell XPS 13, HP OmniBook X 14, and more), are there any plans to provide builds for Matlab on Windows arm64?
Since there are already Windows builds of Matlab, it shouldn't be too hard to compile for Windows arm64, as far as I know. But I am not famaliar with Matlab's codebase.
Please try to publish Windows arm64 builds soon so that Matlab can be much more usable on Windows on ARM as it will run natively instead of in emulation.
Thank you very much.
This is not a question, but a point of discussion for the entire community. I am aware that every 1/2 months this theme comes out, but until this is not fixed it is totally necessary that this comes, indeed, out. And I said "fix" because Mathworks has to understand that a dark theme is not only a visual/aesthetic matter, it is a substantial part of the game. Most of the OS, GUIs, programs are actually in dark mode, and a vast majority of the users makes indeed use of a global dark mode. How much one does like it is personal, but the benefits to power savings and eye health is instead a fact. Mathworks being ignoring this for years is nothing but ridiculous. Of course it is not an easy task, but every minute of committment for it is worthy. And nope, Schemer is not helpful because it does not provide a real fix to this question.
I feel free to suggest something similar to the Spyder's dark theme, which came out like 2 years ago if I remember correctly.
Of course, my point is not being disrespectful (I am instead very respectful to the huge efforts of Mathworks for making this wonderful program run). But, form a user's point of view, the fact that not a single word has so far come out from Mathworks about a dark theme (meaning that for sure we will not see it in a timing of months) requires us to put a strong pressure on this.
Mathworks, please: it's time for a dark theme.
The int function in the Symbolic Toolbox has a hold/release functionality wherein the expression can be held to delay evaluation
syms x I
eqn = I == int(x,x,'Hold',true)
which allows one to show the integral, and then use release to show the result
release(eqn)
Maybe it would be nice to be able to hold/release any symbolic expression to delay the engine from doing evaluations/simplifications that it typically does. For example:
x*(x+1)/x, sin(sym(pi)/3)
If I'm trying to show a sequence of steps to develop a result, maybe I want to explicitly keep the x/x in the first case and then say "now the x in the numerator and denominator cancel and the result is ..." followed by the release command to get the final result.
Perhaps held expressions could even be nested to show a sequence of results upon subsequent releases.
Held expressions might be subject to other limitations, like maybe they can't be fplotted.
Seems like such a capability might not be useful for problem solving, but might be useful for exposition, instruction, etc.
As far as I know, starting from MATLAB R2024b, the documentation is defaulted to be accessed online. However, the problem is that every time I open the official online documentation through my browser, it defaults or forcibly redirects to the documentation hosted site for my current geographic location, often with multiple pop-up reminders, which is very annoying!
Suggestion: Could there be an option to set preferences linked to my personal account so that the documentation defaults to my chosen language preference without having to deal with “forced reminders” or “forced redirection” based on my geographic location? I prefer reading the English documentation, but the website automatically redirects me to the Chinese documentation due to my geolocation, which is quite frustrating!
----------------2024.12.13 update-----------------
Although the above issue was resolved by technical support, subsequent redirects are still causing severe delays...
It would be nice to have a function to shade between two curves. This is a common question asked on Answers and there are some File Exchange entries on it but it's such a common thing to want to do I think there should be a built in function for it. I'm thinking of something like
plotsWithShading(x1, y1, 'r-', x2, y2, 'b-', 'ShadingColor', [.7, .5, .3], 'Opacity', 0.5);
So we can specify the coordinates of the two curves, and the shading color to be used, and its opacity, and it would shade the region between the two curves where the x ranges overlap. Other options should also be accepted, like line with, line style, markers or not, etc. Perhaps all those options could be put into a structure as fields, like
plotsWithShading(x1, y1, options1, x2, y2, options2, 'ShadingColor', [.7, .5, .3], 'Opacity', 0.5);
the shading options could also (optionally) be a structure. I know it can be done with a series of other functions like patch or fill, but it's kind of tricky and not obvious as we can see from the number of questions about how to do it.
Does anyone else think this would be a convenient function to add?
If I go to a paint store, I can get foldout color charts/swatches for every brand of paint. I can make a selection and it will tell me the exact proportions of each of base color to add to a can of white paint. There doesn't seem to be any equivalent in MATLAB. The common word "swatch" doesn't even exist in the documentation. (?) One thinks pcolor() would be the way to go about this, but pcolor documentation is the most abstruse in all of the documentation. Thanks 1e+06 !
Info zu Ideas
Share your ideas, suggestions, and wishlists for improving MATLAB. What would make this software absolutely perfect for you? Discuss with other community users.Note that while MathWorks staff might participate in some discussions, this is not an official channel for MathWorks to collect or respond to ideas.
