Re: MakeExpression and color
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg121784] Re: MakeExpression and color
- From: Alexey Popkov <lehin.p at gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2011 02:35:52 -0400 (EDT)
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <email@example.com>
On 1 Oct, 11:09, John Fultz <jfu... at wolfram.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't call it a compensation. In fact, it was deliberately designed this
> way all the way from the time boxes were first introduced.
> It's not at all bad practice to treat presentation and semantics differently.
> TagBox is deeply about semantics, and it allows you to link presentation aspects
> to those semantics, which is all well and good...but any attempt to build a
> semantic layer which depends upon parsing all of the available presentation
> information with, at best, heuristics regarding the semantic utility of that
> information is going to quickly end in a very frustrating mess.
But why in this case the only way to get back original definitions for
a symbol goes through parsing of BoxForms backward to "normal"
expressions? For example, if I wish to get back original definitions
for symbol 'f', I am forced to use the following hack and it seems
that there is no other way to get them (all *Values functions does not
respect the difference between immediate and delayed definitions):
MakeExpression[#, StandardForm] & @@ ToBoxes[Definition[f]]
> John Fultz
> jfultz at wolfram.com
> User Interface Group
> Wolfram Research, Inc.
Prev by Date:
DynamicModule Pure Function
Next by Date:
A collection of Mathematica learning resources
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: MakeExpression and color
Next by thread:
Re: A fast way to compare two vectors