On 07/03/2014 01:41 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> We may try to add better escaping support in 'message'.
> But what we can do now is limited by current structure
> of OutputForm. In particular when TeXFormat sees '%pi'
> it is too late to distingish between mathematical 'pi'
> and abuse of 'message'. OTOH benefits from better
> escaping in message are limited.
It's easy to add a new local operator to turn
message("abc")
into
('MESSAGE "abc")
(or the respective symbol of "abc") instead of currently treating the
argument of message more or less like
outputForm("abc"::Symbol)
Currrent distinction between Symbol and String is really ambiguous.
Try
outputForm("_"%_""::Symbol)$OutputForm
This is treated by the output routine like
outputForm("%")$OutputForm
I don't think that this is OK, because I cannot simply print symbols and
strings in different style (e.g. I might want to show strings in \texttt
while symbols in \textit.
message(x) is currently more or less treated like outputForm(x::Symbol).
Therefore my question what we actually want.
Sure realizing dreams means to fix in quite a number of places, but
currently it's imperfect.
But maybe we should wait. If I look into outform.spad, then there are
less things that can possibly appear in an OutputForm than what is
actually treated in TexFormat. I would really like to factor out from
the OutputForm all the operators that cannot be produced by creator
functions from OutputForm. In other words, I'd like to have somewhere a
clear definition of what the OutputForm structure contains and what the
parts actually mean.
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
