If you had asked for tolerances for regular arrays this would've been reasonably straightforward. Something like this:
isapproximatelyequal = @(x1,x2,tol) all(abs(real(x1(:)-x2(:)))<tol) & all(abs(imag(x1(:)-x2(:)))<tol);
But for structs this is a too unspecified operation, in my opinion. What with a pair of structs where one has an additional field 'OK' that is just a simple flag. Are those structs similar enough if everything else i identical? Perhaps you can wrap the isapproximatelyequal above into a function that compares fields in your structs. Something like this:
function OK = isapproximatelyequal_structs(S1,S2,tol)
OK = 0;
fields2 = fieldnames(S2);
fields1 = fieldnames(S1);
toCheck = intersect(fields1,fields2); % for example
for iField = numel(toCheck):-1:1
curr_field = toCheck(iField)';
OK(iField) = isapproximatelyequal(S1.(curr_field{:}),S2.(curr_field{:}),tol);
end
if all(OK)
OK = 1;
else
OK = 0;
end
function OK = isapproximatelyequal(x1,x2,tol)
OK = 0;
try
OK = all(abs(real(x1-x2))<tol) & all(abs(imag(x1-x2))<tol);
catch
OK = 0;
end
This function will not work for structs with more complicated structure, for that you'll have to call the function recursively untill you reach fields that are arrays where isapproximatelyequal will work as you want. You should also have checks on array-sizes since the new implicit expansion might give false positives in isapproximatelyequal.
HTH
