Creating cross-version compatible documentation with Workbench

Wolfram Workbench allows you to create documentation for your own packages that is similar to the build-in documentation center. Integrating this type of documentation with the documentation center is possible starting from Mathematica 6, and hence I would like to create packages whose documentation nicely integrates with Mathematica 6, 7, 8, and 9.

However, Workbench doesn't support this out of the box. Its documentation tools seem to be a spin-off from WRI own tools to create version-specific documentation, so it is no wonder creating cross-version compatible docs in Workbench is nearly impossible.

So far, I've identified the following obstacles to creating cross-version compatible docs:

Documentation indices built with Mathematica <= 8 are not compatible with Mathematica 9, so docs built with <= 8 are not searchable in 9. See this workaround.

Documentation pages built with a given version of Mathematica always give the "This notebook was created in a more recent version of Mathematica" dialog warning in older versions. See this workaround.

The PacletInfo.m syntax has changed with Mathematica 9; it now requires a "Kernel" extension. This chokes the Mathematica 6 PacletManager, ruling out docs simultaneously compatible with 6 and 9. See this workaround.

Workbench 2 can only properly build docs with Mathematica 7 or 8. Mathematica 6 returns malformed notebooks (see this workaround by Simon Rochester), and 9 freezes halfway the build process for large packages.

Docs build with lower version look pretty bad on Mathematica 9. See this partial workaround.

Points 2 and 5 are by no means deal-breakers, but 1 in combination with 4 certainly is. I've managed to find work-arounds for most of these issues, which I've posted below.

If someone has identified similar issues or has better workarounds, I'm all ears!

Comments

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.

Blog

Search This Blog