Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • Jan 18 21:16
    mgroth0 commented #148
  • Jan 16 21:59
    halirutan closed #148
  • Jan 16 21:59
    halirutan commented #148
  • Jan 16 17:22
    mgroth0 edited #148
  • Jan 16 17:22
    mgroth0 assigned #148
  • Jan 16 17:22
    mgroth0 opened #148
  • Dec 28 2019 22:09
    MrHirenP edited #147
  • Dec 28 2019 22:06
    MrHirenP edited #147
  • Dec 28 2019 22:06
    MrHirenP assigned #147
  • Dec 28 2019 22:06
    MrHirenP opened #147
  • Dec 27 2019 20:25
    halirutan labeled #146
  • Dec 27 2019 20:25
    halirutan commented #146
  • Dec 27 2019 14:12
    GalAster assigned #146
  • Dec 27 2019 14:12
    GalAster opened #146
  • Dec 25 2019 16:47
    edwardtao closed #145
  • Dec 25 2019 16:47
    edwardtao edited #145
  • Dec 25 2019 15:57
    edwardtao assigned #145
  • Dec 25 2019 15:57
    edwardtao opened #145
  • Dec 03 2019 15:30
    halirutan closed #143
  • Dec 03 2019 15:30
    halirutan commented #143
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
I am very skeptic how useful a REPL with simple text-output would be and this is one reason why I haven't worked on this.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
"Running a package" from the IDE means to me that you can click a button and the package is loaded in Mathematica where you can test it. However, the way the Wolfram Workbench does this is not documented. In the past, I spent some time digging for a good solution and I believe I might have found a way that makes communication of IDEA with a running Mathematica possible, but atm it is just not worth the effort. There are too many things that still wouldn't work. For instance what about "building documentation". This has been a pain for years as many who tried to build docs for their packages can assure you. Especially documentation that works in several different Mathematica versions seems to be a pain.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
Debugging Wolfram code like you would do it in C, Java, ... is a whole different beast. The notion of "a line of code that contains an instruction you can stop at" just doesn't exist. Mathematica evaluates expressions over and over again until it doesn't change any more. Furthermore, Wolfram never bothered to provide a good and documented way of inserting debugging information (like line-numbers) into code that can later be used to break at this point. This, however, is exactly what the Mathematica does internally when you debug code in the front end. It is the reason, why you need to turn on debugging before you evaluate the functions you want to debug. Mathematica tags all occurring expressions. If you are curious, you can use the LinkSnooper where you can see the communication between the front end and the kernel, turn on debugging and define a simple function.
What you see is that the expressions that are sent to the kernel for evaluation look like this (for f[x_] := x^2):
BoxData[RowBox[{TagBox[RowBox[{"f", "[", "x_", "]"}], DebugTag[87393]], ":=", TagBox[RowBox[{"x", "^", "2"}], DebugTag[87409]]}]]
This is why the debugger feels so weird when you come from a different language and you have to break at "expressions" rather than lines. The notion lines is lost.
I don't need to say that none of how the debugger really works is documented except in posts like the one Szabolcs linked to.
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
There is no way I can implement this without decompiling code of the Workbench which of course would not only mean an awful lot of work on my end, but it also would break a thousand laws.
And believe me, I have tried to ask for the Workbench code with what I think good arguments.
Szabolcs Horvát
@szhorvat

@jportway

There are two issues:

  • Some things are difficult to implement (a few may be possible though)
  • Some things don’t really seem that useful in practice. I think most people ask for them because they come from another language and are used to the workflow of that language (which may be suboptimal for Mathematica)>

Overall, I think it would be useful to get feedback from users like you not only about what they want, but also why they want it.

This is why I asked for more details on why you find debugging painful.
However, to be realistic, debugging would be prohibitively difficult to implement without documentation ...
The other two things were:
  • REPL. I don’t see how this is useful in practice.
  • "Run package.” The the Workbench this just auto-loads the package in a notebook. I can do that manually by evaluating a single cell, so I don’t see any value in it.
That said, I am sure that there are multiple use cases that I did not think of or that never come up for me personally but may come up for you.
That’s why I asked for more information.
Szabolcs Horvát
@szhorvat
@halirutan OCD request: can you add spaces before the | in this window?
image.png
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@szhorvat Hehe.. sure.
Szabolcs Horvát
@szhorvat
Not sure why this is highlighted as unused ...
image.png
Will try to make minimal example later
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@szhorvat Without looking, I can guess the problem: It's inside the definition list (although it's from a different construct).
Please open an issue for that.
Kuba Podkalicki
@kubaPod
@halirutan is it true that the best structure for a github wiki files is a flat list of files? I am trying to link to subdirectories but then it won't open the file within the wiki but as a separate page
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@kubaPod Hmm, are you using normal markdown links or media-wiki link style like [[/images/path/to/image.ext|ALT TEXT]]?
Also, there might be a difference if you use absolute URLs like https://github...
Kuba Podkalicki
@kubaPod
@halirutan I forgot to mention that I am talking about .md content and creating a sidebar from it
[[nested/path]] does not work and direct links open in a new tab
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@kubaPod Well, this is odd because it worked for me. I reworked the side-bar for the JabRef project some time ago.
I'm not sure we had nested content but the links to internal md pages definitely open in the same tab for me.
Kuba Podkalicki
@kubaPod
@halirutan there is a flat list of .md files
I want to keep'em organized in a nested directory structure
Files, not the sidebar content (yet).
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
Hmm, that that maybe a good question for SO?
I don't know without trying.
Kuba Podkalicki
@kubaPod
I was surprised how hard it is to find a manual about _Sidebar syntax
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
Yep, took me also a while back then.
Kuba Podkalicki
@kubaPod
I think the answer is, you can't keep them in nested dirs if you want links to work well, because something about gollum
Gerli
@gerli
I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong or there's a bug here (I only just discovered the proper module structure set-up in order for cross-module linking to work)... I have a project with two modules, module B is dependent on module A. Module A uses the same context (MyContext) in two different files MyContextComputation.m and MyContextObject.m. They both have a public section where they declare the usage messages of functions defined in those files. In Module B, functions defined in MyContextComputation.m correctly get underlined as coming from a different file but the functions defined in MyContextObject.m get a wriggly line with "Could not resolve symbol definition". I think the way I have it structured is not entirely unusual (although I don't know if having non-private contexts in multiple files is standard or not). Is this a known limitation, anything else I should try to tickle some indexing or similar?
Gerli
@gerli
Sorry, the other way around -- it's detecting the functions from MyContextObject.m (so the file that is later in alphabetical ordering) but not from MyContextComputation.m
Gerli
@gerli
And in a different project that I have, I also have the same context used across multiple files and I'm using the same private symbol in multiple files (defined in one and used in many) -- is there any way to get the correct linking working here at all?
Gerli
@gerli
I found an answer to that last question myself -- it works if I add a usage message to the private function (easy enough to do and makes sense)
Gerli
@gerli
And I figured out the first question too -- the two different files thing is a red herring. In the MyContextComputation file I don't have explicit symbol::usage = ... settings, I've factored it out into a addUsageMessage[symbol, "substring used in a template"] because I have quite many very similarly structured functions and I wanted a nice long usage message for all of them. And I guess the linking relies of this symbol::usage = ... line, yes?
Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@gerli To give some context: It's not possible to do correct resolving of symbols because for that, one would need to evaluate the code. Only when the kernel runs the code, we can be certain which symbols resolves to which definition. This is not possible in the IDE and we need to make crude assumptions to get a practical solution. Even getting the context of a symbol right is tricky at best and impossible in other cases.
What the plugin does is looking for symbol::usage = as you have correctly determined. This leads to the following things
  1. You need to give a symbol a usage message if you want it to be found in a different file
  2. Since I'm not checking the context where a symbol lives, you can also give private symbols a usage message and it will be found in a different package. So you have to be careful to import the correct context.
  3. If you have symbols that don't do anything (think of Node or Leaf in a tree) and IDEA warns you that it doesn't find a "definition", you can simply give it a usage message to make it resolve (which is both good programming style and informative for people reading your code)
Gerli
@gerli
Makes sense, thanks for the clarification!
Gerli
@gerli

Whether I defined this with or without full context in knownSymbols.m, it’s not recognized when written with full context in MATLink.m

This is from a discussion in October. I'm stumbling on this same issue -- symbols that I reference with their full context (usually because of pulling in symbols from a private context of some file) don't get the linking, even if I add a usage message explicitly with the full context. Should I create a bug report for it?

Patrick Scheibe
@halirutan
@gerli No need for a bug-report, because I'm aware of this and unfortunately, it's exactly where reality hits the hardest. To be specific: If you enter Foo`bar`fun[3] then of course the plugin knows that you mean fun in the context Foo`bar` . However, at the position where you defined fun[x_]:=.. inside your package, I would need to evaluate the whole code to find that when the symbol fun is put into the symbol-table, it is put into the context Foo`bar` .
Also, the new style package format makes this entirely hidden from the user and the rules what is done to $Context and $ContextPath during loading of a file changed with the Mathematica version.