S5 is a sparse specification for slide presentations that run in the browser. It looks quite nice, and there's a couple of exporters for org-mode.
I am running Org 7.9.2 in Emacs 23, and I have a nearly working example:
* Joint diagonalization
Why does this work?
- Covariance matrices are commuting normal matrices
\begin{equation*}
(A^*A)
\end{equation*}
This produces one slide, but the equation snippets don't appear as evaluated.
Figured it out as I was writing the question, but it's worth mentioning as I couldn't find the answer anywhere else. As given in this page, the standard way for org-mode to export math into HTML is to use MathJax, set up to connect to the org-mode website to get at the script. This applies as well for S5.
That means you have to have a working connection to render that, or you have to set the path option in your org file like this: #+HTML_MATHJAX: path:"/MathJax/MathJax.js"
Also, if you run NoScript like me, you also have to make sure the domain specified is allowed to run scripts in your browser, or it'll never work ;)
Related
The publish function in MATLAB works for both scripts and functions,
while the one for Octave works only for scripts: if I enter
publish myFunc.m
Octave gave
error: publish: Only Octave script files can be published.
Am I able to publish a function in Octave? If yes, how?
You can use Octave Forge generate_html package which is meant to generate html of individual functions. It is mostly used to generate the documentation of Octave Forge packages, and its defaults reflect that, but you could add any style you want.
This package will use the same help text that the help function in Octave sees which is the first block of comments in the file that does not start by Copyright or Author. You can have it in plain text but for nicer formatting, you can use Texinfo. In that case, the first line of the help text should be -*- texinfo -*-. There is a page on the Octave wiki with tips on how to write nice help text including a short section on Texinfo syntax (the actual Texinfo manual can be a bit overwhelming).
In addition to the help text, the generate_html package also identifies %!demo blocks and generates a section with the demo code and output it generates, including figures.
The best way to see how help text and demo blocks work in Octave is to check the source (as #Andy pointed out in the comments). For example, see the source for inpolygon (scroll to the bottom to find the %!demo blocks, right before %!test and %!error). The generate_html package generates this page (note the Demonstration blocks).
This is a "multiple questions in one" question, making lots of assumptions in between, so let's address those first:
1. I'll start by the question in the comment, since that's the easiest: Matlab's publisher is not a code documentation tool. It's a "make a quick report that includes both text and code to show at your supervisor meeting or write a quick point in a blog" tool. So the link you point to is simply irrelevant in this case, since that talks about documentation for matlab code.
2. The fact that matlab's publisher also "works for functions", particularly given the first point here, should be considered to be more of a bug than a feature, or at most as a trivial undocumented extension. If you look at the matlab documentation for the publish command, you'll see it expects a filename, not a function with arguments, and the documentation only talks about scripts and makes no mention of 'function' compatibility.
3. Furthermore, even if you did want to use publisher as a "documentation tool", this is counterintuitive for functions in this format, since you need to provide arguments in order for publisher to work (which will not be shown in the actual report), you'll need a modified version that displays intermediate calculations (as opposed to your normal version which presumably does not), and the function just spews an ugly ans= blabla at the end of the report. If your end goal is documentation, it might be best to write a bespoke script for this anyway, showing proper usage and examples, like matlab does in its actual documentation.
Having said all that, yes, there is a 'cheat' you can do to include a function's code in your published report, which is that, in octave (also matlab since R2016b), functions can be defined locally. A .m file that only contains function definitions is interpreted as a function file, but if there are other non-function-declaration instructions preceding the function definitions (other than comments), then it is seen as a script. So if you publish this script, you effectively get a published report with function code in it:
%% Adding function
% This function takes an input and adds 5 to it.
%% Example inputs
In = 10;
%% The function itself
% Marvel at its beauty!
function Out = myfun(In)
%% Here is where the addition takes place.
% It is a beautiful addition
Out = In + 5;
end
%% Example use
Out = myfun(In)
(If you're not happy about having to create a 'wrapper script' manually, you can always create your own wrapper function that does this automatically).
However, both the matlab and octave publishers are limited tools by design. Like I said earlier, it's more of a "quick report to show numbers and plots to your supervisor" tool, rather than a "make nice documentation or professional reports" tool. Instead, I would invest in a nice automated latex workflow, and have a look at code formatting tools for displaying code, and simply wrap that code in a script that produces output to a file that you can then import into latex. It may sound like more work, but it's a lot more flexible and robust in the long term, particularly since the formatting commands can be very quirky as well as limited.
I know of the cprintf Undocumented Matlab way of changing the color and other font properties in the command window but I also saw this symbols in plots. This shows that Matlab supports TeX markup in plots at least. I played with it for a while and found it very useful. So much so that I wanted to find a way to include this in the command window.
I first tried sprintf('\color{red} Something\n') and was rewarded with an error that \c is not a recognized escape sequence. Google was no help either.
This is a way to use the some of the other formatting options in the command window?
The command window doesn't support TeX. Sorry. The TeX support is part of the routines that generate the figures, not the code that displays the command window.
In essence, the command window is, by modern standards, a pretty boring terminal emulator. There's not much you can do with it.
If you're looking for something to do math in that generates fancy notebooks on the fly that combine the commands you type and their results in a nice-to-read, modern way, you might just want to avoid Matlab and have a look at Jupyter (formerly IPython) Notebooks, which of course support MathJax (and thus, LaTeX math syntax): https://try.jupyter.org/
I'm looking for a way to generate and insert header comment blocks above my functions in Emacs (in any mode), with the default contents of the comment automatically based on the function's signature (i.e. the correct number of #param place-holders).
Doxymacs is a nice candidate. But I prefer another way works without the necessary libs. Can anyone recommend some others ways for adding smart comments for functions in Emacs? Thanks.
Edit:
Now I found this: http://nschum.de/src/emacs/doc-mode/, but it seems that it does not work well after I require it into my .emacs and add hook for js-mode. Doesn't it support js functions ?
I don't know of any general-purpose approach.
Csharp-mode has a defun that is bound to / , which tries to generate comments appropriate for C#. The way it works: Every time you type a slash, it looks to see if it is the third slash in a row. (In C#, three slashes are used to denote comments that produce documentation). If it is the third slash, then it looks at the surrounding text and inserts a comment skeleton or fragment that is appropriate.
It is not generalized in any way to support javascript or other language syntaxes. But you might be able to build what you want, if you start with that.
here's the excerpt:
http://pastebin.com/ATCustgi
I've used doxymacs in the past and I've found it useful
http://doxymacs.sourceforge.net/
I have a lot of HTML files (10,000's and GBs worth) scraped from a server and I want to check to make sure the server produces the same results after some modifications but ignore kinds of differences that don't matter, e.g. whitespace, missing newlines, timestamps, small changes in some kinds of number, etc.
Does anyone know of a tool for doing this? I'd really rather not do more filtering than I have to.
(Oh and it needs to run under linux)
You might consider using a clone detector such as our CloneDR. This tool parses large sets of computer program (HTML is special case) files, builds abstract syntax trees representing the essential structure of each files, and compares programs for similarity.
Because it is comparing essential program structure, it ignores inessential differences such as comments and whitespace, and deterimines that two code segments are either identical or one can be obtained from the other by substituting other blocks of code. The latter allows the recognition of code that has been modified in various ways. You can see samples of clone detection runs on a variety of computer languages at the web site.
In your case, what you would be looking for are files in system A which are essentially clones (exact or near misses) of files in system B. As a general rule, if a file a is a variant of file b (e.g., with a few changes) the CloneDr will report it as a clone and show the exact differences.
At the scale of 20,000 files, I can see why you want a tool, and I can see why you want near-miss matches rather than exact matches.
Doesn't run under Linux, but I assume your problem is hard to enough to solve so that isn't what you are optimizing.
I use winmerge alot in windows and from what i can see some people enjoy meld in linux, so perhaps that could do the trick for you
http://meld.sourceforge.net/
Other examples i saw from a quick googling was Kompare,xxdiff.sourceforge.net, and kdiff3.sourceforge.net
(could only post 1 link so wrote the adresses to xxdiff and kdiff3 as text)
Beyond Compare is purchased software that is actually worth the money (I never thought I'd hear myself typing that!). It is GUI based but handles thousands of files very well. It will allow you to specify unimportant changes with regular expressions as well as whitespace (beginning, middle and end of line). The feature set is very extensive, check out a trial download.
I do not work for this company, I just use Beyond Compare every day at work and enjoy it every time!
I want to fully-justify latex code on EMACS so that my latex code will look better. For example, I remember my advisor sending me latex in fully justified way like this:
In ~\cite{Hummel2004}, authors described an approach for harvesting
software components from the Web. The basic idea is to use the Web as
the underlying repository, and to utilize standard search engines,
such as Google, as the means of discovering appropriate software
assets. Other researchers have crawled through Internet publicly
available CVS repositories to build their own source code search
engines (e.g., SPARS-J)~\cite{Matsushita2005}.
I suppose that his column-width is set to 70 columns.
Could someone give me a hint?
The standard fill.el package includes the command justify-current-line which is part of what you need. From the function help:
Do some kind of justification on this line.
Normally does full justification: adds spaces to the line to make it end at
the column given by `current-fill-column'.
Optional first argument how specifies alternate type of justification:
it can be `left', `right', `full', `center', or `none'.
If how is t, will justify however the `current-justification' function says to
And other posters have already given you the magicall invokation:
M-x set-justification
As a philosophical side note, the point of fixed-wdith text justification is to fake real typography on a inflexible output device. So applying it to LaTeX source seems a little odd to me. Moreover, I have been using the "one sentence to a line" approach to LaTeX documents for some months now, and find that it really does improves both the editability and the source-control behavior of LaTeX, so I would recommend against doing this.
If you select the region, and then press Ctrl-u M-x fill-region you get "full justification".
M-x set-justification-full
Use Refill mode afterwards to not have to run the command again after typing.
To get line wrap in the file itself (as opposed to something like longlines-mode that does not alter the structure of the file), I use auto-fill-mode, which automatically applies M-q (fill-paragraph) to each paragraph. For example, I use auto-fill-mode in mail-mode. You could do something similar with your LaTeX mode with a hook like this:
(add-hook 'TeX-mode-hook 'turn-on-auto-fill)
Assuming your TeX mode's hook is TeX-mode-hook.