Re: [Texmacs-dev] [bug #24585] Plugins for scipy and matplotlib

[Joris van der Hoeven]

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