PDF Version (113 KB)
email@example.com Urs Oswald http://www.ursoswald.ch
September 23, 2002
For MetaPost, `2/5' is a
. As a consequence, `2/5[P0, P1]' is equivalent to
`(2/5)[P0, P1]'. Furthermore, the figure above reveals that MetaPost reads `-2/5[P0, P1]' as
`-((2/5)[P0, P1])'. Therefore, `-2/5[P0, P1]' is equivalent to `2/5[P0, P1] rotated 180'. And
`-c[P0, P1]' is, for MetaPost, equivalent to '-(c[P0, P1])', which in turn is equivalent to
`c[P0, P1] rotated 180'.
In order to find out how MetaPost breaks down an input sequence like
In the case of the above input sequence, you will find that it is broken down into the tokens
MetaPost knows three kinds of tokens:
What is or is not a numeric token is defined by the following set of syntactic rules:
In order to prove that `1.4142' is a numeric token , one first establishes, by rule (A), that each of `1',`4',`2' is a decimal digit . So by the first part of rule (B), `1' and `4' are also of expression type digit string . Using the second part of (B) thrice in a row, one proves that `4142' is a digit string . Finally, by the third part of rule (C) it follows that `1.4142' is a numeric token .
The notation used here and afterwards to formulate syntactic rules for expressions were introduced about 1960 by John Backus and Peter Naur. Rule (A) determines that a decimal digit is either of 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and nothing else. Similarly, rule (C) determines that an expression is a numeric token iff (if and only if) it is of one of the three following expression types: ` digit string ', `. digit string ', ` digit string . digit string '.
How can one prove that `.4.1' is not a numeric token ? One has to prove that it is neither a digit string , nor of one of the two forms `. digit string ' or ` digit string . digit string '. As a digit string consists of decimal digits only, neither of `.4.1', `4.1', `.4' is a digit string . So `.4.1' has none of the three possible forms of a numeric token .
For MetaPost, the input sequences `sqrt3a' and `sqrt 3a' are equivalent, as both are broken down into the tokens
,and so are the input sequences `www.latex2html.org' and `www latex 2html org', both of which result in the sequence
.And both of `sind30cosd60+sind60cosd30' and `sind 30 cosd 60 + sind 60 cosd 30' yield the token sequence
The following diagram is taken from KNUTH, p. 211. It contains the complete and final set of syntactic rules for numeric expressions.
The above set of rules implies:
By lines 8 and 9, a numeric token atom is either a numeric token or a numeric token not followed by `/ numeric token ' . So a numeric token atom is a numeric token or has one of the 9 forms
The figure below gives an overview of the subtypes of numeric expression . The classification of expressions is not absolute, but it depends on the context, as the following example shows. In the expression `.61803[2, 5]', the sequence `.61803' is a numeric token atom ; in the expression `.61803/3.14[2, 5]' it is not.
Each one of the input sequences `sind4a', `sind 4 a', and `sind4.a' will result in the token sequence
.(The `d' in `sind' refers to degree, as `sind' expects the argument to be measured in degrees.) Let `a' be numeric. By line 27 of the set of syntactic rules for numeric expressions, the first token, , is a numeric operator . The second token is a numeric token atom not followed by + or - or a numeric token . It is therefore, by line 30, a scalar multiplication operator , and, by line 28, a numeric operator . The third token is a numeric variable which is a numeric atom by line 1 and a numeric primary by line 10. Therefore, the token sequence has the form
numeric operator numeric operator numeric primary .The only way of reducing this sequence is by line 22: numeric operator numeric primary yields numeric primary , which means that `sind4a' is equivalent with `sind(4a)'. Again by use of line 22, we can finally reduce the sequence to numeric primary .
The input sequence `sind4a' (or, equivalently, `sind 4 a' or `sind 4a') has the form
sind numeric token atom numeric variable ,and can therefore be converted by the syntax rules into
It may seem arbitrary that this time, we do not classify the token as a numeric token atom not followed by + or - or a numeric token , as we did in the previous example. Had we done so, we would have ended up with
numeric operator numeric operator times or over numeric primary ,a sequence which cannot be proven to be a numeric expression by the syntax rules.
While each numeric primary is also a numeric secondary , the reverse is not true. For the numeric secondary `2*3.1415', we can prove that it is not a numeric primary by proving that it is of neither of the possible expression types given in lines 10 through 23: It is neither an isolated numeric atom (10) nor a mediation expression (11), and interpreting the leading digit `2' as a numeric operator leads nowhere. It neither starts with a pair part nor a transform part , and it does not begin with any of the remaining operators length, ASCII, oct, hex, angle, turningnumber, totalweight, directiontime ...of.
The following diagram is taken from Donald E. Knuth, The METAFONTbook, p. 212:
Now let's go back to the mediation expressions `2/5[P0, P1]' and `-2/5[P0, P1]'. (We suppose that a preliminary declaration pair P has been made.) The first is of the form
numeric token atom [ pair variable , pair variable ].So we can establish each of the forms
scalar multiplication operator pair primaryand finally, by line 46, to pair primary .
What about `a/b[P0, P1]'? This sequence is of the form
numeric variable / numeric variable [ pair expression , pair expression ]and therefore
numeric atom / numeric atom [ pair expression , pair expression ]by line 1 of the syntax rules. There are no rules for reducing numeric atom / numeric atom . So MetaPost tries by applying line 45 to numeric atom [ pair expression , pair expression ], reducing this expression to pair primary . But then it gets stuck with
numeric atom / pair primary ,as it cannot divide a numeric atom by a pair primary . The error message is:
! Not implemented: (known numeric)/(pair).