Is it possible, when using IHaskell, to have all the output automatically processed by Latex, or understood as Markdown ?
Perhaps this will involve (at least if I want it to work with data of type MyType) using import IHaskell.Display and instance IHaskellDisplay MyType where... but I don't know how to make this work!
Thanks!
edit Someone asked for an example, so what I have in mind is: every string of output (for every output is a string, ultimately...) is processed as latex code (or markdown). If a function returns, say, an integer, the result will be barely visible, but if a function returns the string $\mathbb{Z}$ then what appears on the screen is
$\mathbb{Z}$
[alert ! I thought we had latex formulae on stackoverflow, just like we do in mathoverflow, but if we don't, you need your imagination here!...]
Ultimately i imagine I would have a class Latexable a where showlatex :: a -> String and I would implement showlatex for some types.
Well, I'm happy with various partial solutions, allowing me to have some formulae typeset directly in the notebook, it doesn't really matter whether all output is processed...
Here's a partial answer to my own question.
import IHaskell.Display (latex)
Then if you try, say
latex "$x+y$"
it works!
It remains to find a mechanism so that latex is automatically called in certain situations, so the question remains open. But in most cases, I'm good.
Related
I have different commands my program is reading in (i.e., print, count, min, max, etc.). These words can also include a number at the end of them (i.e., print3, count1, min2, max6, etc.). I'm trying to figure out a way to extract the command and the number so that I can use both in my code.
I'm struggling to figure out a way to find the last element in the string in order to extract it, in Smalltalk.
You didn't told which incarnation of Smalltalk you use, so I will explain what I would do in Pharo, that is the one I'm familiar with.
As someone that is playing with Pharo a few months at most, I can tell you the sheer amount of classes and methods available can feel overpowering at first, but the environment actually makes easy to find things. For example, when you know the exact input and output you want, but doesn't know if a method already exists somewhere, or its name, the Finder actually allow you to search by giving a example. You can open it in the world menu, as shown bellow:
By default it seeks selectors (method names) matching your input terms:
But this default is not what we need right now, so you must change the option in the upper right box to "Examples", and type in the search field a example of the input, followed by the output you want, both separated by a ".". The input example I used was the string 'max6', followed by the desired result, the number 6. Pharo then gives me a list of methods that match that:
To get what would return us the text part, you can make a new search, changing the example output from number 6 to the string 'max':
Fortunately there is several built-in methods matching the description of your problem.
There are more elegant ways, I suppose, but you can make use of the fact that String>>#asNumber only parses the part it can recognize. So you can do
'print31' reversed asNumber asString reversed asNumber
to give you 31. That only works if there actually is a number at the end.
This is one of those cases where we can presume the input data has a specific form, ie, the only numbers appear at the end of the string, and you want all those numbers. In that case it's not too hard to do, really, just:
numText := 'Kalahari78' select: [ :each | each isDigit ].
num := numText asInteger. "78"
To get the rest of the string without the digits, you can just use this:
'Kalahari78' withoutTrailingDigits. "Kalahari"6
As some of the Pharo "OGs" pointed out, you can take a look at the String class (just type CMD-Return, type in String, hit Return) and you will find an amazing number of methods for all kinds of things. Usually you can get some ideas from those. But then there are times when you really just need an answer!
I am writing documentation for a library using haddock, and, for reasons that are not really necessary to explain, I need to include a little code block in my documentation that looks like:
z(<>)
Importantly there can be no space between z and (<>). It may be a bit esoteric but
z (<>)
would make my documentation incorrect, even if it is more stylistically correct.
Now I believe that hyperlinks to both z and (<>) would be helpful. Neither has a very informative name, so a link that helps people remember their definitions and purpose is nice.
So my code without the hyperlinks looks like:
#z(<>)#
And to add hyperlinks I just use single quotes:
#'z''(<>)'#
Except that doesn't work, haddock sees 'z'' and thinks that I mean to link z' (a function that does exist in my module), and then just leaves the rest alone. The rendered output looks like
z'(<>)'
Now as an experiment I deleted the definition of z', however the only difference this makes is that the link to z' goes away. The raw text remains the same. The next thing I tried was ditching #s altogether and did
'z''(<>)'
Which also created a hyperlink to z' and left the rest untouched, the same problem as earlier except now nothing is in a code block.
How can I make a code block that links two functions without a space between?
You can separate the two functions into different code blocks. If there is no space between the code blocks, it will appear no different than a single code block. So
#'z'##'(<>)'#
will render as desired.
You can also do it in one code block by moving the 's inside of the parentheses to only surround <>.
#'z'('<>')#
This will render slightly differently with the parentheses not being part of any hyperlink, however this may be desired.
Here is an alternative solution to add to the answer you already provided:
You can mix and match ' and `. These two will also be rendered correctly by haddock:
-- | #`z`'(<>)'#
-- | #'z'`(<>)`#
At the same time I've tried your solution #'z'##'(<>)'# and for some reason it did not render for me properly, but with haddock you never know.
Here are all of the ones that I've tried:
-- * #'z'##'(<>)'#
-- * #'z'('<>')#
-- * #'z'`(<>)`#
-- * #`z`'(<>)'#
With corresponding result:
How does one convert an ASTNode (or at least a CompilationUnit) into a valid piece of source code?
The documentation says that one shouldn't use toString, but doesn't mention any alternatives:
Returns a string representation of this node suitable for debugging purposes only.
CompilationUnits have rewrite, but that one does not work for ASTs created by hand.
Formatting options would be nice to have, but I'd basically be satisfied with anything that turns arbitrary ASTNodes into semantically equivalent source code.
In JDT the normal way for AST manipulation is to start with a basic CompilationUnit and then use a rewriter to add content. Then ASTRewriteAnalyzer / ASTRewriteFormatter should take care of creating formatted source code. Creating a CU just containing a stub type declaration shouldn't be hard, so that's one option.
If that doesn't suite your needs, you may want to experiement with directly calling the internal org.eclipse.jdt.internal.core.dom.rewrite.ASTRewriteFlattener.asString(ASTNode, RewriteEventStore). If not editing existing files, you may probably ignore the events collected in the RewriteEventStore, just use the returned String.
I would like to change the behavior of menhir's output in follwoing way:
I want it to look up all grammatical alternatives if it finds any, and put them in a list and get me back this ambigouus interpretation. It shall not reduce conflicts, just store them.
In the source code of menhir, it seems to me, that I have to look in "Engine.ml". The resultant syntactically determined token comes in a variant type item "Accepted v" as a state of a checkpoint of the grammatical automaton. This content is found by a function "accept env prod" before, that is part of a bundle of recursive functions, that change the states.
Do you have a tip, how I could change these functions to put all the possible results in the list here and proceed as if nothing happened? Or do you think, that this wont work anyway?
Thanks.
What you are looking for is a GLR parser generator (G is for generalized). Menhir is not such tool, and I doubt you could modify it easily to do what you want.
However, there is another tool that does exactly what you want: dypgen.
I have a LaTeX document where I'd like the numbering of floats (tables and figures) to be in one numeric sequence from 1 to x rather than two sequences according to their type. I'm not using lists of figures or tables either and do not need to.
My documentclass is report and typically my floats have captions like this:
\caption{Breakdown of visualisations created.}
\label{tab:Visualisation_By_Types}
A quick way to do it is to put \addtocounter{table}{1} after each figure, and \addtocounter{figure}{1} after each table.
It's not pretty, and on a longer document you'd probably want to either include that in your style sheet or template, or go with cristobalito's solution of linking the counters.
The differences between the figure and table environments are very minor -- little more than them using different counters, and being maintained in separate sequences.
That is, there's nothing stopping you putting your {tabular} environments in a {figure}, or your graphics in a {table}, which would mean that they'd end up in the same sequence. The problem with this case (as Joseph Wright notes) is that you'd have to adjust the \caption, so that doesn't work perfectly.
Try the following, in the preamble:
\makeatletter
\newcounter{unisequence}
\def\ucaption{%
\ifx\#captype\#undefined
\#latex#error{\noexpand\ucaption outside float}\#ehd
\expandafter\#gobble
\else
\refstepcounter{unisequence}% <-- the only change from default \caption
\expandafter\#firstofone
\fi
{\#dblarg{\#caption\#captype}}%
}
\def\thetable{\#arabic\c#unisequence}
\def\thefigure{\#arabic\c#unisequence}
\makeatother
Then use \ucaption in your tables and figures, instead of \caption (change the name ad lib). If you want to use this same sequence in other environments (say, listings?), then define \the<foo> the same way.
My earlier attempt at this is in fact completely broken, as the OP spotted: the getting-the-lof-wrong is, instead of being trivial and only fiddly to fix, absolutely fundamental (ho, hum).
(For the afficionados, it comes about because \advance commands are processed in TeX's gut, but the content of the .lof, .lot, and .aux files is fixed in TeX's mouth, at expansion time, thus what was written to the files was whatever random value \#tempcnta had at the point \caption was called, ignoring the \advance calculations, which were then dutifully written to the file, and then ignored. Doh: how long have I know this but never internalised it!?)
Dutiful retention of earlier attempt (on the grounds that it may be instructively wrong):
No problem: try putting the following in the preamble:
\makeatletter
\def\tableandfigurenum{\#tempcnta=0
\advance\#tempcnta\c#figure
\advance\#tempcnta\c#table
\#arabic\#tempcnta}
\let\thetable\tableandfigurenum
\let\thefigure\tableandfigurenum
\makeatother
...and then use the {table} and {figure} environments as normal. The captions will have the correct 'Table/Figure' text, but they'll share a single numbering sequence.
Note that this example gets the numbers wrong in the listoffigures/listoftables, but (a) you say you don't care about that, (b) it's fixable, though probably mildly fiddly, and (c) life is hard!
I can't remember the syntax, but you're essentially looking for counters. Have a look here, under the custom floats section. Assign the counters for both tables and figures to the same thing and it should work.
I'd just use one type of float (let's say 'figure'), then use the caption package to remove the automatically added "Figure" text from the caption and deal with it by hand.