Results for
I often see the need of argument validation for which the arguments depend on each other.
function result = myFcn(points, attributes, queryIdx)
% INPUT
% points: [Nx3]
% attributes: [Nx1]
% queryIdx: [Mx1]
%
% OUTPUT
% result: [Mx1]
end
points and attributes depend in size, queryIdx and result as well. The current arguments/end block does not allow to formulate such constraints. The best you can do currently is
function result = myFcn(points, attributes, queryIdx)
arguments(Input)
points (:,3)
attributes (:,1)
queryIdx (:,1)
end
arguments(Output)
result (:,1)
end
assert(height(points) == height(attributes), "Argument validation failed")
...
assert(height(queryIdx) == height(result), "Argument validation failed")
end
Reading just the header without additional comments is unclear for a developer and prone to misunderstanding.
What do you think of the following language extension proposal?
function result = myFcn(points, attributes, queryIdx)
arguments(Input)
points (N,3)
attributes (N,1)
queryIdx (M,1)
end
arguments(Output)
result (M,1)
end
end
The intention is clear for the reader at first sight and gives you guarantees about input/output parameters (in contrast to simple comments). Validating the parameter "points" sets the (temporary) variable N, which can be reused in further argument validations. To be discussed if N and M are valid just within the arguments block or also in the whole function.
What is your opinion on such a language improvement?
