Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add csv file support and solve issues #26, #21, #20, #19, and #24 #41

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
May 3, 2016

Conversation

poortho
Copy link

@poortho poortho commented Apr 21, 2016

No description provided.

.option('--usemathrm', 'Use \\mathrm instead of \\mbox to escape some text literals')
.option('--usemhchem', 'Allow commands from the mhchem package')
.option('-D, --debug', 'Show stack trace on failure');
.option('--semanticLaTeX', 'Include semantic LaTeX')
Copy link
Member

@physikerwelt physikerwelt Apr 21, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

text for options should be all lower case, e.g., --semanticlatex instead of --semanticLaTeX

@physikerwelt
Copy link
Member

👍 Nice. Just some minor comments inline

@HowardCohl
Copy link
Member

@ClaudeZou It's not elliptical Jacobi functions. It's Jacobi elliptic functions. That's very different and wrong the way you wrote it.

@@ -166,6 +179,10 @@ lit
/ name:FUN_AR2 l1:lit l2:lit { return ast.Tex.FUN2(name, l1, l2); }
/ name:FUN_AR2nb l1:lit l2:lit { return ast.Tex.FUN2nb(name, l1, l2); }
/ name:FUN_AR3 l1:lit l2:lit l3:lit { return ast.Tex.FUN3(name, l1, l2, l3); }
/ f:JACOBI l1:lit l2:lit l3:lit atsymbol l4:lit &{ return options.semanticLaTeX; } { return ast.Tex.JACOBI(l1, l2, l3, l4); }
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is the part of the code which verifies that the input tex is correct. Somehow, this needs to be generated from the csv input.

@HowardCohl
Copy link
Member

@ClaudeZou @notjagan Note that my comments about csv parsing do not have to do with the current merge and are ideas just about where to go in the 'near' future. On the other hand, @notjagan needs to be working on moving all 'replacement' efforts into the texer repo. With emphasis on getting all function specific information from the csv file.

@poortho
Copy link
Author

poortho commented May 3, 2016

Fixes #35 and some of the problems mentioned

@physikerwelt
Copy link
Member

ok. let's merge

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants