Discover MakerZone

MATLAB and Simulink resources for Arduino, LEGO, and Raspberry Pi

Learn more

Discover what MATLAB® can do for your career.

Opportunities for recent engineering grads.

Apply Today

handles to subfunctions?

Asked by Walter Roberson on 11 Apr 2012

In R2010b, I find that the Dependency Analyzer gives me warnings about not being able to find various routines; the routines it reports are subfunctions whose handle I am taking. For example,

uicontrol(...., 'Callback', @MyCallback)

then if MyCallback is a subfunction in the same file, the analyzer reports it as not found.

I checked the documentation for function_handle, which says

At the time you create a function handle, the function you specify must be on the MATLAB path and in the current scope of the code creating the handle. For example, you can create a handle to a subfunction as long as you do so from within the file that defines that subfunction.

This seems to specifically allow the construct that the analyzer is having problems with.

R2008b's Dependency Analyzer correctly reports the routines as subfunctions.

Is this just a bug in R2010b's Dependency Analyzer, or is there a change in functionality at stake?

0 Comments

Walter Roberson

Products

No products are associated with this question.

2 Answers

Answer by Richard Brown on 11 Apr 2012

From http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/matlab_env/f9-6232.html

The report does not list:

...

Files called from eval, evalc, run, load, function handles, and callbacks. MATLAB does not resolve these files until run time, and therefore the Dependency Report cannot discover them.

2 Comments

Walter Roberson on 11 Apr 2012

Hmmm... MATLAB doesn't resolve _any_ function until run time, but the dependency analyzer assumes "normal" processing and looks in scope and along the path, so the lack of resolution for function handles to subfunctions is remediable lack, it seems to me.

Richard Brown on 11 Apr 2012

I agree - function handles to subfunctions are entirely unambiguous

Richard Brown
Answer by Titus Edelhofer on 12 Apr 2012

Hi Walter,

interesting observation. It persists in R2012a. On first glance I would agree this should be caught by dependency analysis. I will contact our development to see what's going on.

Thanks,

Titus

0 Comments

Titus Edelhofer

Contact us