On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:52:21AM -0600, Adrian S. wrote: > > Adrian: how manageable is it for you to get communications with Python > > working in Scheme format? It would be really great if all Python-based > > plug-ins > > (Python, Sage, Scipy, matplotlib, etc.) could be done on a similar model > > as what we did for Mathemagix. Unfortunately, I have no idea about how > > difficult that would be. > > Python has introspection and can analyze its output, so, in theory, we > can get it to work for some limited output, basically based on the > type of the output. I still need to study the code of the Mathemagix > plugin to understand what I would need to do. Ero's plugin did > analyze the output and is able to output postscript directly to > TeXmacs. A similar approach can be done.
Since Python is object oriented, I assume that it is possible to add a TeXmacs output method to all objects which would default to verbatim printing, but which might be overridden for special objects. Do you confirm? > >> On the other hand, also "live" graphics in a separate window, that you can > >> zoom, adjust, etc., are useful. In the best possible world, one should have > >> inline graphics by default, and should be allowed to switch to graphics in > >> separate windows that can be manipulated, and to switch back if so desired. > TeXmacs in the SVN already has the ability to pop up some widgets, so > things are approaching that. Mathemagix can already do to some extent > interactive graphics within TeXmacs... This should not really be a problem. > >> The most useful feature of ipython is probably history browsing (with > >> up-down arrows, etc.). I feel that this feature may be difficult to > >> implement in TeXmacs, but I have no idea of the details. On the other hand, > >> I think that it would be highly appreciated. > > I agree that the integration with graphics and nicely typsetted text > is a main goal. I think there are two posibilities: Either want the > python plugin behave like the ipython shell does (which would require > #input-done? or an ingeniuous work around) or have it work a la sage > notebook which is what it is doing currently. I think that we definitely want structured output, at least for mathematical objects. Being able to attach a TeXmacs output method would do the job. What do they do in Sage for 2D math output? > >> > Adrian, could you comment on the perspectives for this. In this way we > >> > could make the wish more precise or split it into the > >> > not-yet-implemented wishes > > I think the knowledge of Python needed to improve the current > situation is not that high. For myself, I would like the sage plugin > to interact much better with TeXmacs. It would be great if most of the work could be done at the Python level and then automatically work for all Python based systems. > I wish I could start working on them right now, but I am on a > deadline, and cannot work on the plugins until sometime in the summer. Anybody on this list does have time for contributing to this? Best, --Joris _______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list Texmacs-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev