Setfield vs dot indexing for deeply nested struct

Question

Michael Van de Graaff 2022-4-25

0
链接

此问题的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/1704175-setfield-vs-dot-indexing-for-deeply-nested-struct

评论： Walter Roberson 2022-4-25

Supose i have the following struct and an associated string:

s.f1.f2.f3.f4.f5 = data;
tmp_string = 's.f1.f2.f3.f4.f5'; 

So, just to be clear, eval(tmp_string) yields data, But eval is bad and i dont use it.

Now suppose I wish to programmatically replace data with newdata. Currently I do this by

sparts = strsplit(tmp_string,'.'); % yields sparts = [{s},{f1},{f2},{f3},{f4},{f5}];
s = setfield(s,sparts{2:end}) = newdata;

However, Matalb suggests I use dot notation and dynamic fieldnames instead of setfield and getfield whenever possible. I think this is a situation where setfield and getfield actually are prefereable, but I'm not sure. Can I do this more cleanly and efficiently with dot notation?

0 个评论
显示 -2更早的评论隐藏 -2更早的评论

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

Answer 1

Stephen23 2022-4-25

0
链接

此回答的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/1704175-setfield-vs-dot-indexing-for-deeply-nested-struct#answer_950135

编辑：Stephen23 2022-4-25

"However, Matalb suggests I use dot notation and dynamic fieldnames instead of setfield and getfield whenever possible."

Ignore it, it is just a suggestion. The static code analyzer cannot understand the entire context of why particular code is being used, it just follows relatively simple rules. Disable the warning on that line (right click, "Supress... on this line").

"I think this is a situation where setfield and getfield actually are prefereable.."

Yes, that seems reasonable.

"Can I do this more cleanly and efficiently with dot notation?"

No.