On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:40 AM rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are at least two rather complete parsers for the "Wolfram Language" > which > render stuff like > foo[x_]:= Sin[x]+Log[x] > into trees / intermediate forms/ Lisp s-expressions. > (compare to Wolfram's "FullForm" which is essentially lisp with [] instead > of (), and moving parens... x+y becomes Plus[x,y] or in lisp, (Plus x y). ) > > I wrote (and posted) a lisp language parser for Mathematica's language, > years ago. > > A top-down recursive descent parser. > At that time, (maybe still?) the > language did not have a context-free grammar, much less one that was > written down. > > I'm not sure what you are aiming to do. > But to make any non-trivial use of Mathematica language ( i.e. other than > algebraic expressions like a*b+c) > you need to have semantics for pattern matching, language features , > conditionals, iteration, > numerics (bizarre bigfloat), and routines like Integrate[], Solve[] etc. > > You cannot map these 1:1 to anything currently in Sage, though I suppose Sage > could > gobble up a version of Mathics. or you could look at the lisp/Maxima code. > > I think openmath has lost out to mathml, but they are both, IMO really > terribly > unreadable, and for no good reason. There is at least one front end for > Maxima that (I think) uses MathML. As long as no human has to read it, > it might be OK except for being about 25X more verbose than needed.
there has been recent work done on OpenMath, so it's not clear who lost. https://www.openmath.org/software/ lists support by Python, GAP, Axiom, Mathematica, Maple Also, https://uniformal.github.io/ uses OpenMath and OpenMath Doc. > > If all you care about is algebraic expressions with standard operators, + * / > - ^ > then the task is a simple homework assignment for an undergrad > course in programming languages/ compiling. > > > RJF > > > > On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 12:29:27 PM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: >> >> On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 9:10:33 AM UTC-7, Rocky Bernstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> So one goal as briefly mentioned was to be able to write/use a common >>> language for expressing CAS. >> >> >> This goal (or perhaps a little more broadly, a common language for >> expressing mathematical objects) has been around for a long time and has >> proven rather difficult. You should probably look into efforts that went >> into OpenMath (https://www.openmath.org/) and evaluate what works and does >> not work there. >> >> One of the early design goals of Sage was actually exactly to be a >> compatibility/translation layer between different CA systems and libraries. >> That's where the "expect" interfaces come from and several of those >> interfaces (libmaxima, libgap) since then were better integrated to allow >> translation of information on a binary level rather than just via character >> streams. >> >> The overarching language was not particularly modelled on Mathematica, but >> rather on Magma, which matches Python fairly well. >> >> I'd expect that you'll run into the same kind of issues that Sage has run >> into if you try to replicate its efforts on a Mathematica-modelled platform. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/b7e13235-6acd-48c4-8d1f-d1c82c563e89o%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1tE_NkDEaJJkSHew7Bd6a6cvzR7SgBUeQzdhFcPVZukA%40mail.gmail.com.
