Re: [Texmacs-dev] [bug #24585] Plugins for scipy and matplotlib

[Adrian S.]

>> The feature of inline graphics is extremely useful and desirable, since it
>> would create an open-source, notebook-like environment similar to the one
I agree.

> Adrian: how manageable is it for you to get communications with Python
> working in Scheme format? It would be really great if all Python-based 
> plug-ins
> (Python, Sage, Scipy, matplotlib, etc.) could be done on a similar model
> as what we did for Mathemagix. Unfortunately, I have no idea about how
> difficult that would be.

Python has introspection and can analyze its output, so, in theory, we
can get it to work for some limited output, basically based on the
type of the output.  I still need to study the code of the Mathemagix
plugin to understand what I would need to do.  Ero's plugin did
analyze the output and is able to output postscript directly to
TeXmacs.  A similar approach can be done.

>
> It would probably also be useful to write a small TeXmacs library with
> counterparts for the $-prefixed commands in Mathemagix, so as to easily
> generate TeXmacs markup as output.

That would help.

>> On the other hand, also "live" graphics in a separate window, that you can
>> zoom, adjust, etc., are useful. In the best possible world, one should have
>> inline graphics by default, and should be allowed to switch to graphics in
>> separate windows that can be manipulated, and to switch back if so desired.
TeXmacs in the SVN already has the ability to pop up some widgets, so
things are approaching that.  Mathemagix can already do to some extent
interactive graphics within TeXmacs...
>> The most useful feature of ipython is probably history browsing (with
>> up-down arrows, etc.). I feel that this feature may be difficult to
>> implement in TeXmacs, but I have no idea of the details. On the other hand,
>> I think that it would be highly appreciated.

I agree that the integration with graphics and nicely typsetted text
is a main goal. I think there are two posibilities:  Either want the
python plugin behave like the ipython shell does (which would require
#input-done? or an ingeniuous work around) or have it work a la sage
notebook which is what it is doing currently.

Joris' history browsing is interesting, and maybe it is what you want.


>> > Adrian, could you comment on the perspectives for this. In this way we
>> > could make the wish more precise or split it into the
>> > not-yet-implemented wishes

I think the knowledge of Python needed to improve the current
situation is not that high.  For myself, I would like the sage plugin
to interact much better with TeXmacs.

I wish I could start working on them right now, but I am on a
deadline, and cannot work on the plugins until sometime in the summer.

Peace.
-Adrián.