I am working with nom version 6.1.2 and I am trying to parse Strings like
A 2 1 2.
At the moment I would be happy to at least differentiate between input that fits the requirements and inputs which don't do that. (After that I would like to change the output to a tuple that has the "A" as first value and as second value a vector of the u16 numbers.)
The String always has to start with a capital A and after that there should be at least one space and after that one a number. Furthermore, there can be as much additional spaces and numbers as you want. It is just important to end with a number and not with a space. All numbers will be within the range of u16. I already wrote the following function:
extern crate nom;
use nom::sequence::{preceded, pair};
use nom::character::streaming::{char, space1};
use nom::combinator::recognize;
use nom::multi::many1;
use nom::character::complete::digit1;
pub fn parse_and(line: &str) -> IResult<&str, &str>{
preceded(
char('A'),
recognize(
many1(
pair(
space1,
digit1
)
)
)
)(line)
}
Also I want to mention that there are answers for such a problem which use CompleteStr but that isn't an option anymore because it got removed some time ago.
People explained that the reason for my behavior is that nom doesn't know when the slice of a string ends and therefore I get parse_and: Err(Incomplete(Size(1))) as answer for the provided example as input.
It seems like that one part of the use declarations created that problem. In the documentation (somewhere in some paragraph way to low that I looked at it) it says:
"
Streaming / Complete
Some of nom's modules have streaming or complete submodules. They hold different variants of the same combinators.
A streaming parser assumes that we might not have all of the input data. This can happen with some network protocol or large file parsers, where the input buffer can be full and need to be resized or refilled.
A complete parser assumes that we already have all of the input data. This will be the common case with small files that can be read entirely to memory.
"
Therefore, the solution to my problem is to swap use nom::character::complete::{char, space1}; instead of nom::character::streaming::{char, space1}; (3rd loc without counting empty lines). That worked for me :)
I am attempting to 'simplify' some smtlib2 files using the z3 Python API via the following:
reading in an SMTLIB2 file
applying some tactics & extracting a simplified goal
adding the simplified goal to a new solver
printing the new solver via to_smt2()
I have an odd use case where it would be ideal if the resulting smtlib file did not contain any let expressions. Is there a way to expand them via the python API?
Creation of let-expressions are controlled by the pretty-printer. Try something like:
set_option(max_args=10000000, max_lines=1000000, max_depth=10000000, max_visited=1000000)
You can play with the actual numbers to find a setting that works for your use case. Essentially, the larger the numbers, the less the sharing/chopping off will be.
Also of importance is the parameter min_alias_size. Also try setting that to a large number. (The default is 10, which forces let-expressions.)
Let's say I want to parse the string ***cat*** into Markdown using the CommonMark standard. The standard says (http://spec.commonmark.org/0.28/#phase-2-inline-structure):
....
If one is found:
Figure out whether we have emphasis or strong emphasis: if both closer
and opener spans have length >= 2, we have strong, otherwise regular.
Insert an emph or strong emph node accordingly, after the text node
corresponding to the opener.
Remove any delimiters between the opener and closer from the delimiter
stack.
Remove 1 (for regular emph) or 2 (for strong emph) delimiters from the
opening and closing text nodes. If they become empty as a result,
remove them and remove the corresponding element of the delimiter
stack. If the closing node is removed, reset current_position to the
next element in the stack.
....
Based on my reading of this the result should be <em><strong>cat</strong></em> since first the <strong> is added, THEN the <em>. However, all online markdown editors I have tried this in output <strong><em>cat</em></strong>. What am I missing?
Here is a visual representation of what I think should be happening
TextNode[***] TextNode[cat] TextNode[***]
TextNode[*] StrongEmphasis TextNode[cat] TextNode[*]
TextNode[] Emphasis StrongEmphasis TextNode[cat] TextNode[]
Emphasis StrongEmphasis TextNode[cat]
It's important to remember that Commonmark and Markdown are not necessarily the same thing. Commonmark is a recent variant of Markdown. Most Markdown parsers existed and established their behavior long before the Commonmark spec was even started.
While the original Markdown rules make no comment on whether the <em> or <strong> tag should be first in the given example, the reference implementation's (markdown.pl) actual behavior was to list the <strong> tag before the <em> tag in the output. In fact, the MarkdownTest package, which was created by the author of Markdown and markdown.pl) explicitly required that output (the original is no longer available online that I know of, but mdtest is a faithful copy with its history showing no modifications of that test since the initial import from MarkdownTest). AFAICT, every (non-Commonmark) Markdown parser has followed that behavior exactly.
The Commonmark spec took a different route. The spec specifically states in Rule 14 of Section 6.4 (Emphasis and strong emphasis):
An interpretation <em><strong>...</strong></em> is always preferred to <strong><em>...</em></strong>.
... and backs it up with example 444:
***foo***
<p><em><strong>foo</strong></em></p>
In fact, you can see that that is exactly the behavior of the reference implementation of Commonmark.
As an aside, the original question quotes from the Appendix to the spec which recommends how to implement a parser. While potentially useful to a parser creator, I would not recommend using that section to determine proper syntax handling and/or output. The actual rules should be consulted instead; and in fact, they clearly provide the expected output in this instance. But this question is about an apparent disparity between implementations and the spec, not interpretation of the spec.
For a more complete comparison, see Babelmark. With the exception of a few (completely) broken implementations, every "classic" Markdown parser follows markdown.pl, while every Commonmark parser follows the Commonmark spec. Therefore, there is no actual disparity between the spec and implementations. The disparity is between Markdown and Commonmark.
As for why the Commonmark authors chose a different route in this regard, or why they insist on calling Commonmark "Markdown" when it is clearly different are off topic here and better asked of the authors themselves.
I'm looking for a fast library/class to parse plain text using expressions like below:
Text is: <b>Name:</b>John<br><i>Age</i>32<br>
Pattern is: {*}Name:</b>{%}<br>{*}Age</i>{%}<br>
And it will find me two values: John and 32.
Intent is to parse simple HTML web pages without involving heavy duty tools. It should not be using string operations or regexps internally but probably do char by char parsing.
Since you appear to be asking the user to specify the HTML content you want, it's probably alright to use regular expressions here (why do you have an aversion to them?). It's not HTML parsing, anymore, just simple text matching, which is what regular expressions are designed for.
Here's an example:
$match =~ s/{\*}/.*?/g;
$match =~ s/{%}/(.*?)/g;
$html =~ /$match/;
Which will leave what you need in your capturing groups.
A regex replacement would work. Just get it to return both values together like "John%32" and then split the response to get the two separate values.
There's really no advantage to character-by-character parsing manually implemented here, as such problems have been by and large solved for these types of problems.
If you're dealing with an extremely normalized set of data (i.e. the template you described above is formatted exactly the same in every circumstance with no possibility of missing closing tags, HTML being inserted in odd places, etc.), regular expressions are a perfectly appropriate tool to parse this sort of data.
If the HTML can not be guaranteed to be perfect, then the most straightforward solution is to use a tool to load the HTML structure into a DOM and find the appropriate elements in the document tree.
Developing a character-by-character approach will probably end up being equivalent to manually implementing one of the above two options, which is not a trivial thing to implement.
When I write math in LaTeX I often need to perform simple arithmetic on numbers in my LaTeX source, like 515.1544 + 454 = ???.
I usually copy-paste the LaTeX code into Google to get the result, but I still have to manually change the syntax, e.g.
\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})
must be changed to
154,7/25 - (289 - 1337/42)
It seems trivial to write a program to do this for the most commonly used operations.
Is there a calculator which understand this syntax?
EDIT:
I know that doing this perfectly is impossible (because of the halting problem). Doing it for the simple cases I need is trivial. \frac, \cdot, \sqrt and a few other tags would do the trick. The program could just return an error for cases it does not understand.
WolframAlpha can take input in TeX form.
http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2010/09/30/talk-to-wolframalpha-in-tex/
The LaTeXCalc project is designed to do just that. It will read a TeX file and do the computations. For more information check out the home page at http://latexcalc.sourceforge.net/
The calc package allows you to do some calculations in source, but only within commands like \setcounter and \addtolength. As far as I can tell, this is not what you want.
If you already use sage, then the sagetex package is pretty awesome (if not, it's overkill). It allows you get nicely formatted output from input like this:
The square of
$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$
is \sage{matrix([[1, 2], [3,4]])^2}.
The prime factorization of the current page number is \sage{factor(\thepage)}
As Andy says, the answer is yes there is a calculator that can understand most latex formulas: Emacs.
Try the following steps (assuming vanilla emacs):
Open emacs
Open your .tex file (or activate latex-mode)
position the point somewhere between the two $$ or e.g. inside the begin/end environment of the formula (or even matrix).
use calc embedded mode for maximum awesomeness
So with point in the formula you gave above:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
press C-x * d to duplicate the formula in the line below and enter calc-embedded mode which should already have activated a latex variant of calc for you. Your buffer now looks like this:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
$\frac{-37651}{150}$`
Note that the fraction as already been transformed as far as possible. Doing the same again (C-x * d) and pressing c f to convert the fractional into a floating point number yields the following buffer:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
$\frac{-37651}{150}$
$-251.006666667$
I used C-x * d to duplicate the formula and then enter embedded mode in order to have the intermediate values, however there is also C-x * e which avoids the duplication and simply enters embedded mode for the current formula.
If you are interested you should really have a look at the info page for Emacs Calc - Embedded Mode. And in general the help for the Gnu Emaca Calculator together with the awesome interactive tutorial.
You can run an R function called Sweave on a (mostly TeX with some R) file that can replace R expressions with their results in Tex.
A tutorial can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6451985/Learning-to-Sweave-in-APA-Style
My calculator can do that. To get the formatted output, double-click the result formula and press ctrl+c to copy it.
It can do fairly advanced stuff too (differentiation, easy integrals (and not that easy ones)...).
https://calculator-algebra.org/
A sample computation:
https://calculator-algebra.org:8166/#%7B%22currentPage%22%3A%22calculator%22%2C%22calculatorInput%22%3A%22%5C%5Cfrac%7B1%2B2%7D%7B3%7D%3B%20d%2Fdx(arctan%20(2x%2B3))%22%2C%22monitoring%22%3A%22true%22%7D
There is a way to do what you want just not quite how you describe.
You can use the fp package (\usepackage[options]{fp}) the floating point package will do anything you want; solving equations, adding dividing and many more. Unfortunately it will not read the LaTeX math you instead have to do something a little different, the documentation is very poor so I'll give an example here.
for instance if you want to do (2x3)/5 you would type:
\FPmul\p{2}{3} % \p is the assignment of the operation 2x3
\FPupn\p{\p{} 7 round} % upn evaluates the assignment \p and rounds to 7dp
\FPdiv\q{\p}{5} % divides the assigned value p by 5 names result q
\FPupn\q{\q{} 4 round} % rounds the result to 4 decimal places and evaluates
$\frac{2\times3}{5}=\FPprint\q$ % This will print the result of the calculations in the math.
the FP commands are always ibvisible, only FPprint prints the result associated with it so your documents will not be messy, FP commands can be placed wherever you wish (not verb) as long as they are before the associated FPprint.
You could just paste it into symbolab which as a bonus has free step by step solutions. Also since symbolab uses mathquill it instantly formats your latex.
Considering that LaTeX itself is a Turing-complete markup language I strongly doubt you can build something like this that isn't built directly into LaTeX. Furthermore, LaTeX math matkup itself has next to no semantic meaning, it merely describes the visual appearance.
That being said, you can probably hack together something which recognizes a non-programmable subset of LaTeX math markup and spits out the result in the same way. If all you're interested in is simple arithmetics with fractions and integers (careful with decimal fractions, though, as they may appear as 3{,}141... in German texts :)) this shouldn't be too hard. But once you start with integrals, matrices, etc. I fear that LaTeX lacks expressiveness to accurately describe your intentions. It is a document preparation system, after all and thus not very suitable as input for computer algebra systems.
Side note: You can switch to Word which has—in its current version—a math markup language which is sufficiently LaTeX-like (by now it even supports LaTeX markup) and yet still Google-friendly for simpler terms:
With the free Microsoft Math add-in you can even let Word calculate expressions in-place:
There is none, because it is generally not possible.
LaTeX math mode markup is presentational markup and there are cases in which it does not provide enough information to calculate the expression.
That was one of the reasons MathML content markup was created and also why MathML is used in Mathematica. MathML actually is sort of two languages in one:
presentation markup
content markup
To accomplish what you are after you'll have to have MathML with comibned presentation and content markup (see MathML spec).
In my opinion your best bet is to use MathML (even if it is verbose) and convert to LaTeX when necessary. That said, I also like LaTeX syntax best and maybe what we need is a compact syntax for MathML (something similar in spirit to RelaxNG compact syntax).
For calculations with LaTeX you can use a CalcTeX package.
This package understand elements of LaTeX language and makes an calculations, for example your problem is avialble on
http://sg.bzip.pl/CalcTeX/examples/frac.tgz
or just please write
\noindent
For calculation please use following enviromentals
$515.1544 + 454$
or
\[ \frac{154.7}{25}-(289-\frac{1337}{42.})
\]
or
\begin{equation}
154.7/25-(289-1337/42.)
\end{equation}
For more info please visite project web site or contact author of this project.
For performing the math within your LaTeX itself, you might also look into the pgfmath package, which is more powerful and convenient than the calc package. You can find out how to use it from Part VI of The TikZ and PGF Packages Manual, which you can find here (version 2.10 currently): http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/graphics/pgf/base/doc/generic/pgf/pgfmanual.pdf
Emacs calc-mode accepts latex-input. I use it daily. Press "d", followed by "L" to enter latex input mode. Press "'" to open a prompt where you can paste your tex.
Anyone saing it is not possible is wrong.
IIRC Mathematica can do it.
There is none, because it is generally not possible. LaTeX math mode
markup is presentational markup and there are cases in which it does
not provide enough information to calculate the expression.
You are right. LaTeX as it is does not provide enough info to make any calculations.Moreover, it does not represent any information to do it. But nobody prevents to wright in LaTeX format a text that contains such an information.
It is a difficult path, because you need to build a system of rules superimposed on what content ofthe text in Latex format needs to contain that it would be recognizable by your interpreter. And then convince the user that it is necessary to learn, etc. etc...
The easiest way to create a logical and intuitive calculator of mathematical expressions. And the expression is already possible to convert latex. It's almost like what you said. This is implemented in the program which I have pointed to. AnEasyCalc allows to type an expression as you type the plane text in any text editor. It checks, calculates and generate LateX string by its own then. Its very easy and rapid work. Just try and you will see that.
This is not exactly what you are asking for but it is a nice package
that you can include in a LaTeX document to do all kind of operations including arithmetic, calculus and even vectors and matrices:
The package name is "calculator"
http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/calculator/calculator.pdf
The latex2sympy2 Python library can parse LaTeX math expressions.
from latex2sympy2 import latex2sympy
tex_str = r"""YOUR TEX MATH HERE"""
tex_str = r"\frac{9\pi}{\ln(12)}+22" # example TeX math
sympy_object = latex2sympy(tex_str)
evaluated_tex = float(sympy_object.evalf())
print(evaluated_tex)
This Python 3 code evaluates 9𝜋/ln(12)+22 (in its LaTeX from above) to 33.37842899841745.
The snippet above only handles basic algebraic simplification (math expressions without variables). Since the library converts LaTeX math to SymPy objects, the above code can easily be tweaked and extended to handle much more complicated LaTeX math (including solving derivatives, integrals, etc...).
The latex2sympy2 library can be installed via the pip command: pip install --user latex2sympy2
<>
try the AnEasyCalc program. It allows to get the latex formula very easy:
http://steamandwater.od.ua/AnEasyCalc/
:)