OutputForm rebase by mmatera · Pull Request #1635 · Mathics3/mathics-core

mmatera · 2026-01-19T20:57:37Z

This PR rebase #1570, including just the changes required to use the new implementation of OutputForm.

Remove rules of the form MakeBoxes[_, OutputForm]
Implement eval_makeboxes_outputform
use eval_makeboxes_outputform in MakeBoxes[OutputForm[_],_]
Modify format_element in a way that use form as the second argument of eval_makeboxes if form is a BoxForm.
Update format_test.yaml according to the new results, closer to WMA.

rocky · 2026-01-19T21:25:26Z


    def eval_mathml(self, expr, evaluation) -> Expression:
-        "MakeBoxes[MathMLForm[expr_], (OutputForm|StandardForm|TraditionalForm)]"
+        "MakeBoxes[MathMLForm[expr_], Alternatives[StandardForm,TraditionalForm]]"


What's the difference between using | vs Alternatives[]?

I have seen problems confusing Alternatives with Or, but now I am not able to reproduce it. I can revert it.

No need to change. I was just curious.

I have changed all the occurences of Alternatives in favor of using |.

rocky · 2026-01-19T21:27:43Z

 However, this will not be accepted as input to \Mathics anymore:
  >> [1 2 3]
-  : Expression cannot begin with "[1 2 3]" (line 1 of "<test-Formatting Output-28>").
+  : Expression cannot begin with "[1 2 3]" (line 1 of "<test-Formatting Output-29>").


Can we use the more general (and probably more robust) "..." instead of 28/29 here?

Docpipeline works if I replace the whole line with ..., but not just a part.

Then let's replace the entire line. This is very fragile, and we use other mechanisms for testing output.

…e_1d_OutputForm

Co-authored-by: R. Bernstein <rocky@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: Juan Mauricio Matera <matera@fisica.unlp.edu.ar>

rocky · 2026-01-20T17:44:09Z

  latex:
    System`InputForm: 1.09*{}^{\wedge}12 + 3.*I
-    System`OutputForm: 1.09\times 10^{12}\text{ + }3. I
+    System`OutputForm: '\text{1.09×10${}^{\wedge}$12 + 3. I}'


In Wolframscript I am seeing \times used instead of × which I think is more correct. This also occurs many other places in this file.

Regarding the recent CI failures, I think if we use plain "*", then TeX and LaTeX will convert this to a nice character operator automatically. And I think I have seen this done in Wolframscript output for TeXForm.

When I build the table, I found some problems with the TeXForm and MathMLForm output produced by WMA: sometimes it just shows errors and fails to produce an output, or the produced output does not compile well in LaTeX or render properly in the browser. The partial solution I found was to pick the current output from Mathics, and generate native WMA tests to compare and improve the cases that make sense to improve.

Regarding this particular character, I just committed a patch to produce the right LaTeX command.

I put this in another PR. We can see to load these equivalences from the tables there.

rocky · 2026-01-20T17:49:12Z

  latex:
    System`InputForm:  -1.*{}^{\wedge}-6
-    System`OutputForm: -1.\times 10^{-6}
+    System`OutputForm: '\text{-1.×10${}^{\wedge}$-6}'


In WolframScript, I am seeing grave and * used:

-\text{1.$\grave{ }$*${}^{\wedge}$-6}

This is the output I get in WolframScript for this test case:

In[1]:= -1. 10^6 //InputForm//TeXForm Out[1]//TeXForm= \text{-1.*${}^{\wedge}$6} In[2]:= -1. 10^6 //OutputForm//TeXForm Out[2]//TeXForm= \text{ 6$\backslash $n-1. 10} In[3]:= -1. 10^6 //StandardForm//TeXForm Out[3]//TeXForm= -1.\times 10^6 In[4]:= -1. 10^6 //TraditionalForm//TeXForm Out[4]//TeXForm= -1.\times 10^6

The main difference in OutputForm comes from the pretty-print-like output, which we currently do not support.
\grave{ } is used to mark the tick character, used in StandardForm for 'Real' numbers:

In[1]:= -1. 10^6 //StandardForm Out[1]//StandardForm= -1.`*^6

However, as can be seen in the example, it is not used in TeXForm.

rocky · 2026-01-20T18:04:21Z

Overall, there is a big improvement. I am seeing a lot of discrepancies in format_tests.yaml between wolframscript and what we produce.

Let's discuss how to handle.

rocky · 2026-01-20T19:54:00Z

This is a bit messy, and I think it would have been better to have focused on something smaller, like getting TeXForm working better, before combining that with OutputForm work. However, I think we should commit this and iterate.

…e_1d_OutputForm

mmatera · 2026-01-20T20:39:13Z

This is a bit messy, and I think it would have been better to have focused on something smaller, like getting TeXForm working better, before combining that with OutputForm work. However, I think we should commit this and iterate.

Again, the goal is to establish a framework that works at least as well as our last version, but that allows to make formatting more compatible with WMA. This is why I tryied to avoid fixing some details in our TeXForm implementation, which in comparison with WMA is not too bad...

mmatera · 2026-01-20T20:59:45Z

Overall, there is a big improvement. I am seeing a lot of discrepancies in format_tests.yaml between wolframscript and what we produce.

Let's discuss how to handle.

I start to put more on the true output of WS in test/format/format_test-WMA.yaml. See #1639. The content format_tests.yaml should try to be similar or in some cases better than what we see in test/format/format_test-WMA.yaml.

rocky · 2026-01-20T21:07:12Z

This is a bit messy, and I think it would have been better to have focused on something smaller, like getting TeXForm working better, before combining that with OutputForm work. However, I think we should commit this and iterate.

Again, the goal is to establish a framework that works at least as well as our last version, but that allows to make formatting more compatible with WMA. This is why I tryied to avoid fixing some details in our TeXForm implementation, which in comparison with WMA is not too bad...

The situation though, is that I think some concepts like understanding precedence is missing, and instead we have precedence more hard-coded, which will probably mean there are omissions. And we have hard-coded characters in there. So I expect there will be another pass at this.

But this is a good start. LGTM.

mmatera · 2026-01-20T21:20:33Z

This is a bit messy, and I think it would have been better to have focused on something smaller, like getting TeXForm working better, before combining that with OutputForm work. However, I think we should commit this and iterate.

Again, the goal is to establish a framework that works at least as well as our last version, but that allows to make formatting more compatible with WMA. This is why I tryied to avoid fixing some details in our TeXForm implementation, which in comparison with WMA is not too bad...

The situation though, is that I think some concepts like understanding precedence is missing, and instead we have precedence more hard-coded, which will probably mean there are omissions. And we have hard-coded characters in there. So I expect there will be another pass at this.

Another pass is coming to handle these aspects.

But this is a good start. LGTM.
Thanks for the large review!

rocky · 2026-01-20T21:22:21Z

Overall, there is a big improvement. I am seeing a lot of discrepancies in format_tests.yaml between wolframscript and what we produce.
Let's discuss how to handle.

I start to put more on the true output of WS in test/format/format_test-WMA.yaml. See #1639. The content format_tests.yaml should try to be similar or in some cases better than what we see in test/format/format_test-WMA.yaml.

Better is good.

mmatera added 5 commits January 19, 2026 14:59

more tweaks in InputForm

26a52b3

improve OptionValues InputForm. Adding documentation

e67e06f

improve Definition

f843756

Fix parenthesized condition in inputform.py

14ddd30

Use new implementation of OutputForm

d7cdc45

mmatera mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2026

OutputForm #1570

Closed

mmatera added 6 commits January 19, 2026 18:09

more explicit logic for parenthesize

a5a2f09

more explicit parenthesize

13c71b9

merge

0f84406

group in

dff8acd

group in

461f552

Merge branch 'more_on_inputform' into rebase_1d_OutputForm

8e6db2f

rocky reviewed Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

mmatera and others added 6 commits January 19, 2026 19:08

improve associativity

54be619

merge

e670635

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/rebase_1d_OutputForm' into rebas…

34d5c01

…e_1d_OutputForm

Update mathics/format/form/util.py

616c143

Co-authored-by: R. Bernstein <rocky@users.noreply.github.com>

black

fd095d9

Merge branch 'more_on_inputform' into rebase_1d_OutputForm

d9b7184

mmatera commented Jan 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread mathics/doc/documentation/1-Manual.mdoc Outdated

mmatera and others added 3 commits January 19, 2026 19:54

Apply suggestions from code review

f6395c8

Co-authored-by: R. Bernstein <rocky@users.noreply.github.com>

Merge branch 'more_on_inputform' into rebase_1d_OutputForm

018b5e2

fix alternatives

3a74c9e

Base automatically changed from more_on_inputform to master January 19, 2026 23:49

mmatera added 2 commits January 20, 2026 11:05

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into rebase_1d_OutputForm

dd5ad9e

handle Optional in OutputForm. Fix PrecedenceForm.

e597a04

rocky reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread mathics/builtin/list/eol.py

Apply suggestion from @mmatera

a3ab0d2

Co-authored-by: Juan Mauricio Matera <matera@fisica.unlp.edu.ar>

rocky reviewed Jan 20, 2026

View reviewed changes

\00d7 -> \times

ee08b07

mmatera and others added 2 commits January 20, 2026 15:05

handle \times inside \text

77dac7e

Update mathics/builtin/list/eol.py

46f3248

mmatera added 2 commits January 20, 2026 17:35

update format_tests-WMA.yaml

0d72916

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/rebase_1d_OutputForm' into rebas…

10d2536

…e_1d_OutputForm

mmatera merged commit bfd9708 into master Jan 20, 2026
21 checks passed

mmatera deleted the rebase_1d_OutputForm branch January 20, 2026 21:20

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

mmatera commented Jan 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rocky Jan 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rocky Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rocky Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

rocky commented Jan 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rocky commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

mmatera commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

mmatera commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

rocky commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

mmatera commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rocky commented Jan 20, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

mmatera commented Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rocky Jan 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rocky Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rocky Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading

rocky commented Jan 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading