On 2 September 2010 04:01, Felix Lawrence <fe...@physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> I think there's some confusion here. kcrisman seems to be talking > about allowing the Mathematica interface to parse mathematica output, > importing it to Sage. Dave seems to be proposing writing something > that lets Sage run mathematica code natively, i.e. without calling > Mathematica. Yes, I expect there's some confusion too. > Incidentally, I think whuss's patch implemented parsing for symbolic > variables and broke the existing functionality for parsing mma's > output (trac seems to be down at the moment so I can't check). A > ticket is ready for review with a patch that improves the mathematica > output parser: it reimplements the old functionality, keeps whuss's > functionality and supports some new things. > > The ticket is available here (when trac recovers): > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8495 > > It doesn't support syntax such as \\, and it is rather cavalier (if > there's no known Sage equivalent to a mma function, it just converts > the function to lower case and hopes for the best!) but it might not > be a bad start for a Mathematica parser. > > 100% compatibility is an unrealistic goal (especially with things such > as mathlink) since mma's language seems to be a moving target, but it > should be possible to do the basics. > > Cheers, > Felix I'd agree the lanague is a bit of a moving target - 6.0, which was a huge upgrade from 5.2, introduced quite a few issues. But actually using jmath http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/ which has not been updated for 4 years seems to work quite well. It gives one command line editing with readline - something I can never understand why Wolfram Research did not implement. Perhaps they consider 99% of people use the GUI. jmath uses Mathlink, but it does not matter if the Mathematica language changes, as the Mathlink protocol is only copying what one types to the kernel and sends back what the kernel produces. Wolfram Research could rename every single command - it would not matter. What I was talking about would be more ambitious. I expect Richard Fateman's Mathematica parser would be more prone to changes in the language, as it is actually parsing the text. 100% comparability with what I am suggesting would never be possible, as Sage only implements a subset (and to be fair a superset) of Mathematica commands. But I believe it would be useful. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
