Re: graph editor
TeXmacs <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.editors.texmacs.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Max, On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:02:12AM +0200, Massimiliano Gubinelli wrote: > > The question is whether TeXmacs would really be in its role here. > > This could be considered to be the job of plug-ins. > > It could. But then the question become if we want to provide a unified mechanism to parse mathematical formulas, e.g. from the TeXmacs format to an abstract form which could then used to create expression in some target language (scheme, mathemagix, Python, etc...) for evaluation. We already have such a mechanism. It is used by each plug-in that supports mathematical input. > Thanks, I will give a look to the parsing support. I looked already in the C++ code but I do not understand how to extract a syntax tree from the parsing execution, it seems that it returns only whether the formula can be parsed. We would need to add productions to the parser and our grammars. That is what I planned to do one day, when I would have time. > > Yet another issue concerns the semantics of symbols/formulas. > > In different areas, the semantics may differ, > > so not everybody will necessarily agree with our decisions. > > > > I think the common need for plugins is to take a TeXmacs document which represent a mathematical expression and extract some AST e.g. a scheme tree, then a plugin can process this tree to target the final language. No, this is not what users of plug-ins expect. They expect to write programs using the syntax of the plug-in. They do not want TeXmacs to mess up the syntax. For instance, Mathematica uses [] instead of (), and Mathematica users want to use the first notation. Best wishes, --Joris _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev