What I am thinking is that the Dewey Decimal number of rules can be ascertained from the nested grouping of cells in the source files.
The current status is as follows: I'm programmatically opening all you rule-notebooks and extract the code cells an put them into the zipped .m files for the package.
This all is done in a loop until all your notebooks are processed. Now, let's assume I use a global counter
i that is increased with each code cell that I write to the .m files. At the moment of processing, I know which notebook I'm processing and which code-cell I'm processing and I have the global counter i. It is very easy to have a mapping function
reference[i_] := {notebook, codecell}
The only slightly non-trivial part is, how I can store
i in the definition of the current rule without breaking anything. But let's assume we have this solved, then I can extract i from each rule and with the help of reference I know instantly where it is defined. I know the exact cell inside the notebook.
So in the best case, I can create for each used rule in
Steps[Int[expr, var]] a button, that automatically opens the right notebook and cell where this rule is defined.
When loading a .m rule file with
Get all comments are ignored and you can never access them again.
This would eliminate the ModifyRule pass.
@halirutan Forget assuming anything about DownValues. I propose:
- Building .m files for the Rubi package like you currently do but with comments giving Reference, Derivation, Basis, and the rule's source file location. E.g. the comment "Derivation: Integration by parts"
- If loading without step information, load the .m files as Mathematica normally does. Thus each rule would be free of any step info.
- If loading with step information, parse the .m files yourself extracting the comments and rule definition. Then define the rule with all this step info. Thus each rule would only have to be defined once, and there would be no second ModifyRule pass. Yea!
Obviously this is a long term project, I am not suggesting you do now.
I assume you meant "wouldn't"...
(a) will definitely be the case. To which degree, I'm not sure.
(b) I would really like to hope this happens. But I have to say that for instance my Mathematica plugin for IntelliJ has right now 47000 downloads and it is open source from the beginning in 2013. Although I have support from various users that test things and report bugs, the one genious programmer, that knows Mathematica and Java well and jumpes on board is still missing.
@AlbertRich What do you think? If we make another button on the web-site for the test suite that links to your page, are we then ready to spread it to the world?
@AlbertRich Hey Albert. As a first step, I would ask Jed for his GitHub name and invite him to our chats. Then we can talk about how much he knows about collaborating through git. In general, everyone can contribute easily even if he is not part of our dev-team which has direct access to the repositories and this is the usual process:
- He "clones" our repository, which means nothing more than making a local copy of it through git (git is actually a program that lets you do this)
- He makes changes locally and pushes them online to his GitHub.
- Then he requests a review so that we have the chance to look if his changes break anything before pulling his additions into our official repository (called a Pull Request).
This is the usual way and anyone on GitHub knows it, so I'm sure Jed is also familiar with it.
But first things first and we need to discuss how exactly we implement everything so that it works out in the end.
If you like, I can write a mail both to you and Jed.