Going through your query, it is difficult to reproduce the error without reference to the code that you are using in your new approach.
Meanwhile, a possible workaround that would be to use “varargin” and check if the first variable parameter is a struct or a string. Based on that you can decide to go with the older or newer workflow. An example of this is below:
function func(main_arg,varargin)
arguments
main_arg % main_arg conditions & validation can done here
end
arguments(Repeating)
varargin
end
if(isstruct(varargin{1}))
% you have passed a struct as the first optional argument
% Assuming that all key value pairs are within the struct,
% check for the missing keys and add their default values below
optional_arg_struct = varargin{1};
if(~isfield(optional_arg_struct,'option1'))
optional_arg_struct.option1 = 'some_default';
end
else
% you did not pass a struct, which means there are going to be name
% value pairs within the varargin. You can read those using a loop
% as follows
defaultStruct = struct('option1','some_default');
if mod(length(varargin), 2) ~= 0
error('Parameters should be in key-value pairs');
end
for k = 1:2:length(varargin)
% If the varargin contains a field, then we replace the structs
% default value with the one passed in the varargin
if isfield(defaultStruct, varargin{k})
defaultStruct.(param) = varargin{k + 1};
else
error('Unknown parameter name: %s', varargin{k});
end
end
end
end
