There is a useful Python solution here to put two images side by side in the notebook, but is there a language agnostic way that does the trick using only Jupyter's own markdown? Something like
 # insert magic here # 
that displays the images side by side?
This would be useful in my case cause I would prefer not to break a markdown cell into two and put code in between, but I also would find this helpful in case the notebook is not running Python. I personally run Julia quite a lot.
A possible solution would be using img tags with the same align attribute:
<img src="path/to/image1" align="left"/><img src="path/to/image2" align="left"/>
Related
This is really a two part question, but they are in the same vein, so I will ask in one post.
When I flip through various colors, I see that they also have the ability to change the color of the Output window. Which VS Code setting can I use to change the color of this output? To be specific, I am not asking about the terminal, I am inquiring about the output window that displays the output when using coderunner as an example. Please refer to the screenshot to see which window I am referring to.
Second question is I can see that the output does support multiple colors. I am trying to use the module cpprint from the python lib prettyprinter to print colored output to this window. When I run the script in a terminal, I am getting colors, but in the output window, I am not getting any colors. Will it be possible for me to get similar colored output in the output window as in the terminal? I am assuming the output window supports colors because the [Running]... and end are in colors.
The Python lib I was referring to
Thanks!
So, for long while now, we have had to resort to an IBM developed extension named Output Colorizer, however, this extension clashed with other extensions, and cuased an array of bugs/issues. I personally had to disable it because it was causing text to not print at all in my output window.
We now have a much more robust, built-in solution, and it doesn't require doing anything.
Visual Studio Code added syntax-highlighting support to the "Output Channel" as part of a Milestone that it had been working on, in its March 2022 Release.
The syntax highlighting is configured by a specified languages grammar.
The language grammar that is used will vary, depending on which output channel you use. The person who decided on the language syntax highlighting used for any given output-channel is the person who authored the extension that the output-channel belongs too.
Here is the link to the official release note
Because the output highlights syntax on a language basis, configuring what colors the new feature uses to color any given text, is done the same way you color syntax.
In Depth Explanation:
If numbers are set by your theme to render green (#00FF00), then, then numbers that are printed in the Output View Panel will also be green.
If the language defined constants true & false render as a pastel-red (#FF7799) when you are writing TypeScript, but when you have a Java file open, they render as a bright pastel-yellow-green (#BBEE88), then the way they render will be contingent on whether or not the output window was set to Java or TypeScript. Obviously an output window for an extension that's a tool for Java, will most likely highlight syntax as Java. A typescript-tool extension will likely highlight all syntax as if it were typescript.
Some People Might Prefer that the Feature be more Customizable
Some people might want a more customizable feature, but I think it would be a mistake, even if it were possible, to highlight the syntax in the output differently from the editor. In fact, thinking about it, it would be stupid to have done that. It makes perfect sense that it is the way it is.
Anyways, that is the end of the Color in the Output Channel, or at-least for now.
I don't know what the correct keywords are for what I am trying to achieve.
I have rainbarf for tmux which AFAIK is written in Perl.
I am wondering if there is some library, extension or functionality in node.js which would enable me to draw bars like the ones rainbarf draws, in order to write tmux monitors (wifi, GPU usage, etc).
Edit
I think that the correct term is unicode boxes as I have finally found a page that documents them.
They seem to be unicode geometric shapes So I am guessing that correctly printing them to screen (assuming the terminal supports them) should achieve the same result?
They appear to be small pixel-sized boxes constrained by the size of a font.
rainbarf is inspired on spark. There are several implementations of spark in JavaScript (and also other languages), check here: https://github.com/holman/spark/wiki/Alternative-Implementations
I found the answer to my question.
This is not related to Node.JS and is in fact simple unicode character printing.
The above picture simply prints a sequence of those characters in a sequence:
'\u2581','\u2582','\u2583','\u2584',
'\u2585','\u2586','\u2587','\u2588'
This in effect produces the "unicode" graph.
It is not language specific, but the colors are.
Is there for doxygen is a more lightweight HTML backend, which does not fill the page with tons of divs and tables? When looking at the css file, the output seems quite bloated. It possible to write another backend. I ask if there already exists one.
Reasons why I need this
It makes it easier to integrate the dox with the rest of the website.
I use hyphenate.js to make my "Related Pages" look good. But that script needs to know which tags it should use. This is much easier with less bloat markup.
Doxygen lacks complete documentation on how the output markup making reverse engineering using Firefox Web Developer tool necessary to modify the 1k lines CSS file. Less bloat markup makes less need for documentation, and it makes documentation more easy for Dimitri to maintain.
Less bloat markup makes the pages more portable.
With doxygen you can export your data in html format, tex format, XML (which you can later parse as you want), RTF, Man pages or Docbook.
The html output supports a custom header, footer and stylesheet (CSS) with the HTML_STYLESHEET attribute which might be what you want. You can rewrite those and adjust the output as you like.
If nothing satisfies you, then you might start thinking manually parsing one of the outputs above with your own scripting language and generate the desired format by yourself (if that suits you) or taking over control of the output generation directly via doxygen sources (https://github.com/doxygen/)
Sources: http://www.doxygen.nl/manual/output.html
What you need to do really depends on exactly what you want to end up with.
There are 'Input Filters', eg: ftp://ftp.rsa.com/pub/dsg/public/doxygen/doxyfilt.pl and 'Output Filters, eg: http://www.bigsister.ch/doxygenfilter/doxygenfilter.html . Writing a customized Filter should do exactly what you want. Using existing Code and putting up with it's limitations will be faster and may provide ideas for writing your own Program (if you wish to do so).
You can try this Website http://www.dirtymarkup.com/ with the output that you object to and see if one of the Tools it suggests will "clean" the Code up enough to your liking without removing too much functionality (IE: the ability to click on Links and expand / contract Sections).
If you really want it 'raw' try HTML2Text https://pypi.python.org/pypi/html2text and then you can 'wrestle it back' with Text2HTML http://txt2html.sourceforge.net/ . That will strip it bare and yet give you back some minimal HTML functionality (preserve Linking).
There are MANY 'HTML <-> Text' converters, in many Languages, use a Search Engine to find your own Source; one that is most suitable for you.
Here is a List of Tools from a reputable Site: http://www.w3.org/Tools/html2things.html .
Here is an List of alternates to convert Languages to HTML: http://www.w3.org/Tools/Prog_lang_filters.html . More Info here: http://www.w3.org/Tools/Filters.html .
When working on different projects, with different people and using different frameworks you often struggle to keep your code compliant to their conventions. Some teams get very strict about naming variables/methods/classes and other things the others make holy wars around the topic. I understand them and I fully support, but as any developer I have my own preference I wish I could code with comfortably. This makes me think whether there is a simple solution.
Are there any tools or editors that can automatically convert code to follow a different standard? I imagine there can be no such smart tool that will support naming conversions, so I'm ok with that, but I really wish to see
foreach($lala as $lalala) {
and not
foreach($lala as $lalala)
{
same goes with statements:
if(I_LIEK_COOKIES) {
eat_cookie();
} else {
toss_cookie();
}
and not
if ( I_LIEK_COOKIES ) {
eat_cookie();
}
else
{
toss_cookie();
}
(note the spaces between and around the parenthesis too)
I won't even mention spaces/tabs, I can convert it in my IDE with a shortcut but it would be awesome.
So the things I would like to get customized are
spaces between parenthesis
tabs/spaces and spaces per tab
mustache brackets on the end of the line or on the new line
always attach mustache brackets to any if/ifelse/else/for/foreach etc.
Some of the extras anyone would appreciate:
Line ending style
Delete extra spaces on the line endings (like sublime text 2 can do on save, but would be great for other IDE/editors)
The perfect workflow would be like this:
I pull from git
The code gets converted to my style
I code stuff
I commit and push
Before everything gets pushed(or even commited) code gets converted to the convention style
Of course, someone may wish not to use git, then it would be simply converted when opening and after saving the file but as I understand it's impossible to do outside of an IDE/editor with a tool of some kind.
Has someone stumbled upon something like that? Could not find anything anywhere but tab/space conversion.
P.S. I wish to mention I'm working with PHP/JS so it's prioritized but I code using other languages on my spare time.
You could store configurations (e.g. vim .vimrcs, Eclipse preferences etc.) in each project's version control repository.
However, I think there's a big problem wrt. converting code when pushing/pulling to/from repositories. If someone reports an issue with your code (e.g. exception at line 100), converting the code when pulling from your repository is going to give you a different line 100. I don't think you can practically operate without working on the exact code that your compatriots are working with.
In noweb mode, I would like to make the doc chunks and code chunks easier to distinguish. I'm already using font-lock-mode, but it applies the same face to strings in R and strings in tex, so doesn't distinguish the code and doc chunks very well.
For example, a slightly different background color for the code chunks.
One possibility would be to define a new face for the minor mode of the code chunk, but then that face would also apply when editing a buffer in that mode.
Another possibility would be to create an overlay for the code chunks.
Also, somewhat related, org-mode can be configured to use different background colors for source blocks.
Update: I now use polymode to achive this.
You can use noweb-font-lock-mode from ESS to get syntax highlighting for both code and documentation chunks. I'd recommend you also use noweb-mode from ESS too, because it has some improvements.
One option would be mmm-mode, with which you can define regions that are in a different mode -- it also applies a face to the entire sub-mode region, which you can use to easily distinguish those regions within the parent file.
I personally use this for Ruby within IRB, Javascript and CSS within HTML etc. There's an example for javascript in my emacs config.
The MuMaMo extensions allows different rules for different parts of the file. Getting the nXhtml package will give you the mode and I think you can configure it to do what you want.