the mathematica syntax parser that I wrote appears to run inside Maxima, so you can, if you wish, feed such text to the mma-in-maxima system.
The intent in that project is mainly to take mma syntax for expressions and map it into maxima, and not take the big step of having a more-or-less full mathematica evaluator in Maxima. My original mockmma (available free) also has a mathematica-style evaluator using matching and rules and such stuff, though hardly complete. There are thousands of procedures. But the basic bones of the evaluator, defining functions (really, rules), is there. So on the one hand it would be fairly trivial to get mathematica syntax "into" Sage. To get all mathematica semantics "into" Sage would be a pretty much endless task, unless WRI went out of business and made its code public. In which case why bother. And yes, the syntax has changed since Mma 3.0, but not so much that the mockmma parser could not be used as a basis for extension, in case some of those extensions turn out to be relevant somehow. RJF On Sep 1, 9:03 pm, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 2 September 2010 04:01, Felix Lawrence <fe...@physics.usyd.edu.au> wrote: > > > I think there's some confusion here. kcrisman seems to be talking > > about allowing the Mathematica interface to parse mathematica output, > > importing it to Sage. Dave seems to be proposing writing something > > that lets Sage run mathematica code natively, i.e. without calling > > Mathematica. > > Yes, I expect there's some confusion too. > > > > > Incidentally, I think whuss's patch implemented parsing for symbolic > > variables and broke the existing functionality for parsing mma's > > output (trac seems to be down at the moment so I can't check). A > > ticket is ready for review with a patch that improves the mathematica > > output parser: it reimplements the old functionality, keeps whuss's > > functionality and supports some new things. > > > The ticket is available here (when trac recovers): > >http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8495 > > > It doesn't support syntax such as \\, and it is rather cavalier (if > > there's no known Sage equivalent to a mma function, it just converts > > the function to lower case and hopes for the best!) but it might not > > be a bad start for a Mathematica parser. > > > 100% compatibility is an unrealistic goal (especially with things such > > as mathlink) since mma's language seems to be a moving target, but it > > should be possible to do the basics. > > > Cheers, > > Felix > > I'd agree the lanague is a bit of a moving target - 6.0, which was a > huge upgrade from 5.2, introduced quite a few issues. > > But actually using jmath > > http://robotics.caltech.edu/~radford/jmath/ > > which has not been updated for 4 years seems to work quite well. It > gives one command line editing with readline - something I can never > understand why Wolfram Research did not implement. Perhaps they > consider 99% of people use the GUI. > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
