Re: [Maxima-discuss] Displaying an "a\nbcd\nef" using very low-level tools

[Eduardo O. <edu...@gm...>]

Update! This is much better - the change is the ",@result" in the
backquote:

  to_lisp();
    (setf (get '$abcdef 'dimension) 'dim-abcdef)
    (defun dim-abcdef (form result)
      (declare (ignorable form result))
      (setq depth 2)
      (setq maxdp 2)
      (setq width 3)
      `((-3 -2 #\f #\e) (-1 -1 #\d #\c #\b) #\a ,@result))
    (to-maxima)
  linel : 40;
  display2d_unicode : false;
  matrix([abcdef(), 42]);
  42 + abcdef();
  abcdef();

The output is:

  (%i4) matrix([abcdef(), 42]);
                [ a   42 ]
  (%o4)         [ bcd    ]
                [ ef     ]

  (%i5) 42 + abcdef();
  (%o5)           a  + 42
                  bcd
                  ef
  (%i6) abcdef();
  (%o6)             a
                    bcd
                    ef

It works well enough for what I need, but it is drawn glued to the "+"
instead of separated from it by a space. Any suggestions very welcome,
of course - but I'll try to clean up the code even without that fix,
and I will post it here when it gets ready...

  Cheers =),
    Eduardo

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 at 11:52, Eduardo Ochs <edu...@gm...> wrote:

> Hi list!
>
> First, some context. In this message from a few days ago
>
>   https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/mailman/message/59245670/
>
> Robert Dodier showed a way to draw matrixes without border characters.
> I have lots of objects - like trees and certain diagrams for teaching
> set comprehensions - that can be represented nicely in ascii art, and
> using RD's trick I can almost do what I want/need.
>
> The most obvious way of handling that problem is saying that what I
> want is wrong, but let me follow another path, and start by a minimal
> example. Here is what I can do with RD's trick. If we run this in a
> REPL in a recent Maxima,
>
>   to_lisp();
>     (setf (get '$barematrix 'dimension) 'dim-$barematrix)
>     (defun dim-$barematrix (form result)
>       (let (($display_matrix_brackets nil))
>         (dim-$matrix form result)))
>     (to-maxima)
>   linel : 60;
>   display2d_unicode : false;
>   BM : barematrix(["a  "], ["bcd"], ["ef "]);
>   matrix([BM, 42]);
>
> We get this:
>
>   (%i4) BM : barematrix(["a  "], ["bcd"], ["ef "]);
>                               a
>
>   (%o4)                       bcd
>
>                               ef
>   (%i5) matrix([BM, 42]);
>                          [  a        ]
>                          [           ]
>   (%o5)                  [  bcd   42 ]
>                          [           ]
>                          [  ef       ]
>   (%i6)
>
> BM looks like "a\n\nbcd\n\nef", but I would like to get something that
> looks like "a\nbcd\nef", without the interline spacings.
>
> Here is an attempt to get a "a\nbcd\nef" using very low-level tools.
> If we run this in a Maxima REPL,
>
>   to_lisp();
>     (setf (get '$abcdef 'dimension) 'dim-abcdef)
>     (defun dim-abcdef (form result)
>       (declare (ignorable form result))
>       (setq depth 2)
>       (setq maxdp 2)
>       (setq width 3)
>       '((-3 -2 #\f #\e) (-1 -1 #\d #\c #\b) #\a))
>     (to-maxima)
>   linel : 40;
>   display2d_unicode : false;
>   matrix([abcdef(), 42]);
>   42 + abcdef();
>   abcdef();
>
> it works, or sort of, in some contexts, but it is very buggy. Look:
>
>   (%i4) matrix([abcdef(), 42]);
>                 [ a   42 ]
>   (%o4)         [ bcd    ]
>                 [ ef     ]
>
>   (%i5) 42 + abcdef();
>   a  + 42
>   bcd
>   ef
>   (%i6) abcdef();
>   24 +
>
>     ef
>
> I'm looking for suggestions on what to fix in my dim-abcdef. If anyone
> wants to take a look at the tools that I am using to explore
> displa.lisp and displm.lisp, they are here -
> <http://anggtwu.net/MAXIMA/2025-testdispla.lisp.html> - but they are
> not worth looking at now, and they are only "documented" using test
> blocks: <http://anggtwu.net/eepitch.html#test-blocks>.
>
> Suggestions like "trace the variables such and such" would be great,
> and suggestions like "use the functions blah and blah instead of your
> setqs", or "make your function return bleh instead of '((-3 -2 #\f
> #\e) (-1 -1 #\d #\c #\b) #\a)" would be even better...
>
>   Thanks in advance!
>     Eduardo Ochs =)
>     http://anggtwu.net/eev-maxima.html
>
>