Skip to main content

version 10 - What is the status of `::usage` and Templates in Mathematica v11?


Since Mathematica 9, a number of issues concerning the ::usage and templates were raised.


In 9.0, there was a bug first reported here and better diagnosed here, where error messages were generated by simply moving the insertion point somewhere in the argument of a function for which a ::usage was defined. This was fixed in 9.0.1


Starting in version 9.0 and observed through 10.4.1, it was reported here that functions with formatted ::usage needed ?Function to be called twice in order for messages to be rendered properly. A bandaid solution was given here.


Certain inflexibility about the text in the templates was raised here and again here, and inconsistencies reported here (also see here).


The consensus I gather from the discussion in the comments above is that ::usage and templates are implemented in Mathematica in a very kludgy way. This can be a source of major frustration for package developers.


So the question I raise is which of the issues have been addressed in v10 and v11? Are there plans for a major overhaul of the ::usage system?



Answer



1) The complete failure of Make Template with formatted usages is fixed in our next release. I can't promise you it will look 100% beautiful in all cases, but the number of templates will match the number in the usage message and you'll at least recognize it as something related to what you put in there. I'm sorry it's taken so long to be addressed--it really has been on our radar for some time--but the fix required a certain amount of cleanup that was not easy to do.



2) About the need to call information twice, we didn't fix it because it was never reported as a bug. There were a few internal reports, but nothing external. We can't fix what we don't know about. While we do monitor stack exchange, there is no substitute for actual bug reports send to support. This has the greatest chance of being routed to the right developer, and the more people how report it, the more resources might be spent on fixing the issue. I'll respond with more details on the appropriate question, but this issue is also fixed for the next release.


3) It's true that we don't provide the same capabability for developer templates as our own. For many reasons, our internal tooling has been constantly evolving since V9 came out. Deploying it to external developers, when we are not confident it is robust and stable, just hasn't been feasible. Hopefully we will get there, but we're certainly not in a position to promise on any particular schedule. In the mean time, we've dealt with two significant issues in our upcoming release. If there are more point fixes we can make to the current system, send in reports!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
Post a Comment
Read more