Okay. As you are new I don't know your level of familiarity with Mathematica. I was going to ask how others have handed a problem relating to creating a custom Plot function. Do you have experience with something like this?
@rcollyer I made a plot function that uses a custom FrameTicks specification in one direction. I'd like to allow for passing standard FrameTicks options to this function but I want to use the custom part where appropriate, e.g. any time True or Automatic is used for that edge.
I find myself writing convoluted code to catch every form of FrameTicks syntax, and I wonder if there is a better way.
I did that with one plot I added to my code sample for WRI. Crafted a mini-parser for one of the options, so that it would always be in canonical form.
I have been using this. It's mostly Leonid's code from the stackoverflow question you linked to, but it uses Definition instead of DownValues. Symbol names are printed without any context, but the full symbol name is put into a Tooltip so you can always find out what context a symbol is in.
Upda...
I was reading in the MMA documentation that Manipulate is a higher abstraction based on Manipulate, is there a MMA command to see the source code of an inhouse function, such as Manipulate? I don't expect to be able to find the low level source, but maybe I can see how higher abstractions are programmed?
You're around for so long and you still don't understand that without a small, working code example it is generally rather hard to answer questions like this. Also, this must be your umpteenth question about InputField and CDF. Will this ever stop? And, on a final note: is it so difficult to learn to format properly? You still randomly capitalize words and use code format for text that isn't code. — Sjoerd C. de Vries16 hours ago
Ah yes, I think I saw that one. Personally Sjoerd was a bit rude with his remark. Though I did think your question could be improved.
As I recall you didn't post any code making it very hard to intepret what you where asking about. Perhaps your question was closed, which would explain why I can't find it (though I may just be looking the wrong places).
So for isnstance if you have 100 lines of code and get a problem where an inputfield turns black unexpected, you should copy the inputfield out, and try to make it show the error.
Then you post only the small example of the code that creates the problem.
@subbu posting a minimal example showing the problem helps a lot. for instance, you have some code and it doesn't work. start writing a smaller example to do somethign similar, and try to build it up until you hit the same problem. then you've located the problem and can post that code as an example (hopefully it's small enough)
@subbu yes that's always a problem; if it's long then most people won't bother trying to understand it. try to find a minimal example that demonstrates the problem
Camel-humps auto-completion for Mathematica
The answer to my question is yes, we can expand the auto-completion capabilities of Mathematica. For those who want to know, how exactly this can be done, I suggest reading the Reverse engineering section below. There I explained how you can investigat...
@OleksandrR. I think this was a mistake. To relatively new members it is not clear that the bugs tag is for confirmed bugs only.
@halirutan thanks. I was confused because it seemed to me not even a suspected bug, let alone confirmed, so I thought I had misunderstood. But it turns out that David agreed with me and now the tag's been removed.
Incidentally, in the upcoming 9.0.1, some of the behind-the-scenes stuff for completion is changing. It's going to invalidate a few answers, like the one for camel-hump completion. But there are a number of improvements and bug fixes. But no camel-hump completion (yet).
