Interesting that latex is easier for you. Is this because you are used to latex or because rst is doing it wrong?
Thank you for your great work! Vinzent On Feb 5, 2:05 pm, Alan Bromborsky <abro...@verizon.net> wrote: > Fabian Seoane wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Alan Bromborsky <abro...@verizon.net > > <mailto:abro...@verizon.net>> wrote: > > > Attached is a patch to upgrade the geometric algebra modules (GA > > replaces GAsympy and latex_ex replaces latex_out). In brief: > > > 1. GA now includes geometric differentiation (generalize n-dimensional > > grad, div, and curl) and curvilinear coordinates. > > > 2. latex_ex now conforms to the standard sympy printer model. Allows > > encoding of complex symbols containing greek characters and accents > > using only ascii letters, numbers, and underscores. Provides several > > formats for the latex printing of multivectors and partial > > derivatives. > > Allows for latex preview if latex and xdvi are installed. > > > 3. In test_GA the global statement has been removed and doc > > strings added. > > > 4. Examples has be added that demonstrate multivector differentiation, > > curvilinear coordinates, and the extended latex printing module > > (latex_ex). > > > 5. Extensive documentation for GA and latex_ex included (sphinx > > format) > > for generation of HTML. > > > Please review this patch. Suggest you compile documentation first and > > look at it. > > > This is great work! great docs! > > > One question: what is the reason to define a new LaTeXPrinter(Printer) > > in sympy/galgebra/latex_ex.py (btw, typo in 7631: rew->raw)? Can't the > > default sympy.printing.LatexPrinter be patched to support what you need? > > > Thanks, > > > -- > > Fabian,http://fseoane.net/blog/ > > Yes rew should be raw. Actually I did use sympy's latex module as a > starting point and modified it to get latex_ex, but I was hesitant to > submit a patch of a module that I had not written that had such > extensive changes. I think they should be kept separate modules until > we are more certain that I did not do something that broke part of the > original module. Then one could be substituted for another. Is there > anything I should do next. > > Note that with regard to generating the documentation. I found a > program that converted Latex files that used the python documentation to > sphinx .rst format. The problem was that the equation mode did not work > so I did a really ugly hack that made it work. I wrote my docs in latex > and used the program to convert them to sphinx format. Would this > program be of interest and would anyone be interested in fixing up my > ugly hack (it is actually a pre and post processor for the sphinx input) > to be consistent with and expand the capabilities of the conversion > program. I think what happened was that equations were not use in the > original python documentation so that no effort was made to get the > equation translation to work correctly. Labels don't always work in the > translation program so I had to hack them also. The question is that > for most people doing documentation is it simpler to do it in latex and > translate to sphinx (.rst) or is it simpler to do it in sphinx in the > first place. For me latex is a lot easier, especially when it comes to > inputting tables. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-patches@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
