kind of new in python but enjoying it very much.
Situation: I'm writing the docstring of my functions in Python 2.7 encoding standard (ASCII i presume). I have to write \xi which of course gives me the escape error
Problem: I need to write comments which are correctly interpreted as restructured text (using rst2pdf for example). Moreover, the math part of the comments should be in latex style for later re-usage of the code. This is mandatory since for several reasons at my work place, math formulas in the eventual final report must come directly from the surge code.
The usage of .. math:: \xi would be ideal since it meets both needs, if it not were for the escape error
Question: How to avoid this error? Is there a way restructuredtext-compatible to tell python to ignore or interpret in a special way the doctest? Or any way to rewrite this but without changing the latex style for the math?
Note: whatever possible modifier may be use for the comments, these can have doctest as well so is necessary to not interfere with that.
THX, any help is welcome, again kind of rookie here.
Related
I wasn't able to recover a similar thread, but I'm surprised nobody asked something so elementary before.
I would like to convert a couple of (quite long, so long I don't want to do it manually) LaTeX notes into something I can post in a forum which supports TeX code between the [tex]...[/tex] BBCode delimiters.
Hence I would like to find an automated way to replace, say,
$e^{i\pi}$
with
[tex]e^{i\pi}[/tex]
and vice versa (easier); possibly something I can write once and for all and execute each time I need it. The best of all would be a solution which also converts \section{...}, \subsection{...} and other environments, but this isn't mandatory, since the only issue with these documents is that they contain tons of math.
My impression is that a professional tool like, say, PanDoc, is too much a "nuke the fly" approach (not to mention I'm not able to use it)... I'm able to use a couple of features of the sublime-text editor, so it would be wonderful if you want to help me referring to it. In any case, keep in mind that I feel kinda yahoo about regex-stuff and suchlike (I've always seen them like a sorcery, or better, I was too dumb to learn them), so please be verbose. :)
LaTeX is a Turing-complete programming language, so a simple regex won't do what you want in general. That said, Andrew Stacey specializes in compiling LaTeX code to various formats, e.g. today's post on G+. I bet he has a program that would parse your latex and emit bbcode.
I have worked with java for a while now, and I found checkstyle to be very useful. I am starting to work with c++ and I was wondering if there is a style checker with similar functionality. I am mainly looking for the ability to write customized checks.
What about Vera++ ?
Vera++ is a programmable tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code.
Vera++ is mainly an engine that parses C++ source files and presents the result of this parsing to scripts in the form of various collections - the scripts are actually performing the requested tasks.
Click here to see a more complete demo of what it can do.
crc.hpp:157: keyword 'explicit' not followed by a single space
crc.hpp:588: closing curly bracket not in the same line or column
dynamic_property_map.hpp:82: keyword 'if' not followed by a single space
functional.hpp:106: line is longer than 100 characters
multi_index_container.hpp:472: comma should be followed by whitespace
version.hpp:37: too many consecutive empty lines
weak_ptr.hpp:108: keyword 'catch' not followed by a single space
...
I have had good feedback about Artistic Style which allows to apply a uniform style on code without too much hassle.
It's free and there are plenty of "classic" styles already defined. It might not work with C++0x new constructs though.
I am also expecting a Clang library, though I haven't found any to date. Normally, given Clang's structure it should be relatively easy, but then it's always easier to say than to code and I guess nobody took the time yet.
KWStyle seems to be a lightweight fit
I am embarking on some learning and I want to write my own syntax highlighting for files in C++.
Can anyone give me ideas on how to go about doing this?
To me it seems that when a file is opened:
It would need to be parsed and decided what type of source file it is. Trusting the extension might not be fool-proof
A way to know what keywords/commands apply to what language
A way to decide what color each keyword/command gets
I want to do this on OS X, using C++ or Objective-C.
Can anyone provide pointers on how I might get started with this?
Syntax highlighters typically don't go beyond lexical analysis, which means you don't have to parse the whole language into statements and declarations and expressions and whatnot. You only have to write a lexer, which is fairly easy with regular expressions. I recommend you start by learning regular expressions, if you haven't already. It'll take all of 30 minutes.
You may want to consider toying with Flex ( the lexical analyzer generator; https://github.com/westes/flex ) as a learning exercise. It should be quite easy to implement a basic syntax highlighter in Flex that outputs highlighted HTML or something.
In short, you would give Flex a set of regular expressions and what to do with matching text, and the generator will greedily match against your expressions. You can make your lexer transition among exclusive states (e.g. in and out of string literals, comments, etc.) as shown in the flex FAQ. Here's a canonical example of a lexer for C written in Flex: http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/ANSI-C-grammar-l.html .
Making an extensible syntax highlighter would be the next part of your journey. Although I am by no means a fan of XML, take a look at how Kate syntax highlighting files are defined, such as this one for C++ . Your task would be to figure out how you want to define syntax highlighters, then make a program that uses those definitions to generate HTML or whatever you please.
You may want to look at how GeSHI implements highlighting, etc. In addition, it has a whole bunch of language packs that contain all the keywords you'll ever want.
Assuming that you are using Cocoa frameworks you can use UTIs to determine the file type.
For an overview of the api:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/understanding_utis/understand_utis_intro/understand_utis_intro.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001319-CH201-SW1
For a list of known UTIs:
http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/Miscellaneous/Reference/UTIRef/Articles/System-DeclaredUniformTypeIdentifiers.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40009259-SW1
The two keys are you probably most interested in would be kUTTypeObjectiveCPlusPlusSource and kUTTypeCPlusPlusHeader.
For the highlighting you might find the information on this page helpful as it discusses syntax highlighting with an NSView and temporary attributes:
http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?ImplementSyntaxHighlightingUsingTemporaryAttributes
I think (1) isn't possible, since the only way to tell if a file is valid C++ is to run it through a C++ parser and see if it parses... but if you used that as your standard, you couldn't operate on code that doesn't compile because it is a work-in-progress, which you probably want to do. It's probably best just to trust the extension, as I don't think any other method will work better than that.
You can get a list of C++ keywords here: http://www.cppreference.com/wiki/keywords/start
The colors are up to you (or if you want, you can make them configurable and leave the choice to the user)
I'm very new to Ada, and I'm trying to do some simple work with some text. All I want to do is read in a file, and strip out anything that isn't a letter, space, or new line. so removing all the punctuation and numbers. In other languages I would just create a simple [^a-zA-Z] regular expression, look at each character and delete it if it fit the RegEx, but I can't seem to find any documentation on RegEx's in Ada. So, are there RegEx's in Ada? If not, what's the best way for me to go about simple text editing like this.
thanks much,
-jb
if you are using the GNAT compiler, there are a set of packages called GNAT.RegExp, GNAT.RegPat and GNAT.Spitbol made for this task.
beware that it is not standard regexp ala perl but is based on SNOBOL4. however, it should not be very difficult to convert from one type of regular expression to another.
You may want to go through this example, and just look for the characters you want to ignore and don't put them into the new string.
Which version of Ada are you using?
http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/html/sec_8/8-4-7.html
I'd probably look at the Gnat snobol stuff in your shoes.
However, there is a project available for general lexical analysis (somewhat like Boot's Spirit) called OpenToken. For slighly more complex tasks, you may find it useful.
I haven't worked with the modern incarnation, but back when I was the lead on it the project was compiler-agnostic.
While editing this and that in Vim, I often find that its syntax highlighting (for some filetypes) has some defects. I can't remember any examples at the moment, but someone surely will. Usually, it consists of strings badly highlighted in some cases, some things with arithmetic and boolean operators and a few other small things as well.
Now, vim uses regexes for that kinda stuff (its own flavour).
However, I've started to come across editors which, at first glance, have syntax highlighting better taken care of. I've always thought that regexes are the way to go for that kind of stuff.
So I'm wondering, do those editors just have better written regexes, or do they take care of that in some other way ? What ? How is syntax highlighting taken care of when you want it to be "stable" ?
And in your opinion what is the editor that has taken care it the best (in your editor of choice), and how did he do it (language-wise) ?
Edit-1: For example, editors like Emacs, Notepad2, Notepad++, Visual Studio - do you perchance know what mechanism they use for syn. high. ?
The thought that immediately comes to mind for what you'd want to use instead of regexes for syntax highlighting is parsing. Regexes have a lot of advantages, but as we see with vim's highlighting, there are limits. (If you look for threads about using regexes to analyze XML, you'll find extensive material on why regexes can't do what parsers do.)
Since what we want from syntax highlighting is for it to follow the syntactic structure of the language, which regexes can only approximate, you need to perform some level of real parsing to go beyond what regexes can do. A simple recursive descent lexer will probably do great for most languages, I'm thinking.
Some programming languages have a formal definition/specification written in Backus-Naur Form. All*) programming languages can be described in it. All you then need, is some kind of parser for the notation.
*) not verified
For instance, C's BNF definition is "only five pages long".
If you want accurate highlighting one needs real programming not regular expressions. RegExs are rarely the answer fir anything but trivial tasks. To do highlighting in a better way you need to write a simple parser. Parses basically have separate components that each can do something like identify and consume a quoted string or number literal. If said component when looking at it's given cursor can't consume what's underneath it does nothing. From that you can easily parse or highlight fairly simply and easily.
Given something like
static int field = 123;
• The first macher would skip the whitespace before "static". The keyword, literal etc matchers would do nothing because handling whitespace is not their thing.
• The keyword matched when positioned over "static" would consume that. Because "s" is not a digit the literal matched does nothing. The whitespace skipper does nothing as well because "s" is not a whitespace character.
Naturally your loop continues to advance the cursor over the input string until the end is reached. The ordering of your matchers is of course important.
This approach is both flexible in that it handles syntactically incorrect fragments and is also easy to extend and reuse individual matchers to support highlighting of other languages...
I suggest the use of REs for syntax highlighting. If it's not working properly, then your RE isn't powerful or complicated enough :-) This is one of those areas where REs shine.
But given that you couldn't supply any examples of failure (so we can tell you what the problem is) or the names of the editors that do it better (so we can tell you how they do it), there's not a lot more we'll be able to give you in an answer.
I've never had any trouble with Vim with the mainstream languages and I've never had a need to use weird esoteric languages, so it suits my purposes fine.