Parser for pure LaTeX

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Is it possible to create a parser for pure LaTeX (no plain TeX, no TeX primitive) without using any TeX engine that supports total LaTeX?
I know about an iOS app to create and typeset LaTeX and I don't think that they are using a TeX engine.
Is there such a Parser?






parsing







share|improve this question



















  • 2




    Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
    – Johannes_B
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
    – Phelype Oleinik
    3 hours ago










  • A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
    – Anush
    2 hours ago







  • 2




    What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
    – TeXnician
    2 hours ago














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Is it possible to create a parser for pure LaTeX (no plain TeX, no TeX primitive) without using any TeX engine that supports total LaTeX?
I know about an iOS app to create and typeset LaTeX and I don't think that they are using a TeX engine.
Is there such a Parser?






parsing







share|improve this question



















  • 2




    Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
    – Johannes_B
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
    – Phelype Oleinik
    3 hours ago










  • A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
    – Anush
    2 hours ago







  • 2




    What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
    – TeXnician
    2 hours ago












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Is it possible to create a parser for pure LaTeX (no plain TeX, no TeX primitive) without using any TeX engine that supports total LaTeX?
I know about an iOS app to create and typeset LaTeX and I don't think that they are using a TeX engine.
Is there such a Parser?






parsing







share|improve this question















Is it possible to create a parser for pure LaTeX (no plain TeX, no TeX primitive) without using any TeX engine that supports total LaTeX?
I know about an iOS app to create and typeset LaTeX and I don't think that they are using a TeX engine.
Is there such a Parser?






parsing




parsing






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago

























asked 3 hours ago









John webner

483




483







  • 2




    Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
    – Johannes_B
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
    – Phelype Oleinik
    3 hours ago










  • A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
    – Anush
    2 hours ago







  • 2




    What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
    – TeXnician
    2 hours ago












  • 2




    Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
    – Johannes_B
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
    – Teepeemm
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
    – Phelype Oleinik
    3 hours ago










  • A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
    – Anush
    2 hours ago







  • 2




    What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
    – TeXnician
    2 hours ago







2




2




Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
– Johannes_B
3 hours ago




Probably yes. Maybe no. What exactly do you want/need?
– Johannes_B
3 hours ago




1




1




Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
– Teepeemm
3 hours ago




Could you elaborate on how this differs from your other question? At the least, that had much more detail, and several worthwhile comments that could help you better phrase your question.
– Teepeemm
3 hours ago




3




3




Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
– Phelype Oleinik
3 hours ago




Although this question is about parsing TeX code at its lowest (the way I interpreted it, at least) I think that the tex-core tag is to the inner working of TeX itself, and you specifically ruled it out, so I would remove it... Either way, I think it's a good question but requires more details. You want to parse only proper LaTeX code, or plain TeX needs to be included. Packages considered? Other formats? Please explain you question better or it will probably be closed as "too broad".
– Phelype Oleinik
3 hours ago












A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
– Anush
2 hours ago





A clearly written Turing complete LaTeX parser in a high level language would be lovely to see.
– Anush
2 hours ago





2




2




What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
– TeXnician
2 hours ago




What is pure LaTeX in your view? Are commands like def (TeX command, but used in many LaTeX documents) out of scope? And what should the output of the parser be?
– TeXnician
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













If you write a parser you can define the subset of latex that you support. (There isn't really a useful definition of "Pure LaTeX with no primitives".)



For instance MathJax has a parser for a subset of LaTeX math markup, written in JavaScript, and LaTeXML has a parser for almost complete TeX written in perl, which does not include any TeX execution. LaTeXML's parser is perhaps the closest to what you ask, as far as I understand the question. https://github.com/brucemiller/LaTeXML



Here is an example that only uses commands defined in core latex (the shortvrb package is part of the base LaTeX2e release, so it is as fundamental art of latex as say section which is defined in article class from the same base release files



documentclassarticle
usepackageshortvrb


begindocument

MakeShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

DeleteShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

enddocument


Note that it is not possible to statically assign any tokenisation to *}* in the first case it produces the two character tokens improve this answer





















  • I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
    – John webner
    2 hours ago










  • @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
    – TeXnician
    2 hours ago










  • I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
    – GrandFleet
    2 hours ago














up vote
3
down vote













If you write a parser you can define the subset of latex that you support. (There isn't really a useful definition of "Pure LaTeX with no primitives".)



For instance MathJax has a parser for a subset of LaTeX math markup, written in JavaScript, and LaTeXML has a parser for almost complete TeX written in perl, which does not include any TeX execution. LaTeXML's parser is perhaps the closest to what you ask, as far as I understand the question. https://github.com/brucemiller/LaTeXML



Here is an example that only uses commands defined in core latex (the shortvrb package is part of the base LaTeX2e release, so it is as fundamental art of latex as say section which is defined in article class from the same base release files



documentclassarticle
usepackageshortvrb


begindocument

MakeShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

DeleteShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

enddocument


Note that it is not possible to statically assign any tokenisation to ** in the first case it produces the two character tokens  








up vote
3
down vote










up vote
3
down vote









If you write a parser you can define the subset of latex that you support. (There isn't really a useful definition of "Pure LaTeX with no primitives".)



For instance MathJax has a parser for a subset of LaTeX math markup, written in JavaScript, and LaTeXML has a parser for almost complete TeX written in perl, which does not include any TeX execution. LaTeXML's parser is perhaps the closest to what you ask, as far as I understand the question. https://github.com/brucemiller/LaTeXML



Here is an example that only uses commands defined in core latex (the shortvrb package is part of the base LaTeX2e release, so it is as fundamental art of latex as say section which is defined in article class from the same base release files



documentclassarticle
usepackageshortvrb


begindocument

MakeShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

DeleteShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

enddocument


Note that it is not possible to statically assign any tokenisation to ** in the first case it produces the two character tokens improve this answer















If you write a parser you can define the subset of latex that you support. (There isn't really a useful definition of "Pure LaTeX with no primitives".)



For instance MathJax has a parser for a subset of LaTeX math markup, written in JavaScript, and LaTeXML has a parser for almost complete TeX written in perl, which does not include any TeX execution. LaTeXML's parser is perhaps the closest to what you ask, as far as I understand the question. https://github.com/brucemiller/LaTeXML



Here is an example that only uses commands defined in core latex (the shortvrb package is part of the base LaTeX2e release, so it is as fundamental art of latex as say section which is defined in article class from the same base release files



documentclassarticle
usepackageshortvrb


begindocument

MakeShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

DeleteShortVerb*

 bfseries ** some text

enddocument


Note that it is not possible to statically assign any tokenisation to ** in the first case it produces the two character tokens { in the second case it produces two character tokens ** (the first one being bold).



It would be reasonable to produce a LaTeX parser for a subset of the language that did not include this kind of construct, but you need to define the subset it isn't enough to say "not plain TeX or primitives" there are plain constructs that can be easily parsed, and there are LaTeX constructions that can not be parsed in general without access to a full tex typesetting system.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 17 mins ago

























answered 2 hours ago









David Carlisle

473k3811011832




473k3811011832




















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I think this already occurs for document conversion software such as pandoc, and others on the internet. Generally speaking these converters only parse a subset of the commands. In addition regex can be used to extract certain tags of interest.






      share|improve this answer




















      • I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
        – John webner
        2 hours ago










      • @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
        – TeXnician
        2 hours ago










      • I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
        – GrandFleet
        2 hours ago














      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I think this already occurs for document conversion software such as pandoc, and others on the internet. Generally speaking these converters only parse a subset of the commands. In addition regex can be used to extract certain tags of interest.






      share|improve this answer




















      • I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
        – John webner
        2 hours ago










      • @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
        – TeXnician
        2 hours ago










      • I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
        – GrandFleet
        2 hours ago












      up vote
      0
      down vote










      up vote
      0
      down vote









      I think this already occurs for document conversion software such as pandoc, and others on the internet. Generally speaking these converters only parse a subset of the commands. In addition regex can be used to extract certain tags of interest.






      share|improve this answer












      I think this already occurs for document conversion software such as pandoc, and others on the internet. Generally speaking these converters only parse a subset of the commands. In addition regex can be used to extract certain tags of interest.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 3 hours ago









      GrandFleet

      1565




      1565











      • I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
        – John webner
        2 hours ago










      • @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
        – TeXnician
        2 hours ago










      • I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
        – GrandFleet
        2 hours ago
















      • I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
        – John webner
        2 hours ago










      • @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
        – TeXnician
        2 hours ago










      • I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
        – GrandFleet
        2 hours ago















      I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
      – John webner
      2 hours ago




      I know that parsers like pandoc can only parse a subset of the commands. E.g. Pandoc can not parse emphtextsectiontexttext. I am looking for a full pure LaTeX parser.
      – John webner
      2 hours ago












      @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
      – TeXnician
      2 hours ago




      @Johnwebner Tbh, you shouldn't use such markup, but of course a parser might want to spit out something…
      – TeXnician
      2 hours ago












      I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
      – GrandFleet
      2 hours ago




      I think you are better off using tex then. doubt there can be a full parser without implementing tex or a subset.
      – GrandFleet
      2 hours ago

















       

      draft saved


      draft discarded















































       


      draft saved


      draft discarded














      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ftex.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f456947%2fparser-for-pure-latex%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest
































































      Comments

      Post a Comment

      Popular posts from this blog

      Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

      Image
      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
      Read more

      Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

      Image
      Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
      Read more

      Confectionery

      Image
      Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
      Read more