* notation @ 2000-08-11 16:58 siepo [not found] ` <3994357D.CFF4E014@pobox.com> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: siepo @ 2000-08-11 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) The texshow program specifies a syntax \setupitemize[...][..,...,..][..,..=..,..] Does this mean that setupitemize has three groups of parameters, the first parameter consisting of either the keyword `each' or a number, the second consisting of standalone keywords and the third consisting of keyword-value pairs? This would seem the only reasonable interpretation, only, it doesn't always match my experiences: an empty set `[]' may show up as text in the output. If you use such a setup command multiple times, in what cases, if any, do the specifications cumulate? Or do you always have to specify everything from scratch? Sometimes a construct `parameter=key1,key2' seems to work and sometimes it doesn't. Right now, I don't have an example handy so if you think I'm wrong then I can save this question until I run into such a case. Siep ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3994357D.CFF4E014@pobox.com>]
* Re: notation [not found] ` <3994357D.CFF4E014@pobox.com> @ 2000-08-11 20:46 ` siepo 2000-08-12 7:54 ` notation Berend de Boer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: siepo @ 2000-08-11 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw) Berend de Boer writes: > siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote: > > > Does this mean that setupitemize has three groups of parameters, the > > first parameter consisting of either the keyword `each' or a number, > > the second consisting of standalone keywords and the third consisting > > of keyword-value pairs? This would seem the only reasonable > > interpretation, only, it doesn't always match my experiences: an empty > > set `[]' may show up as text in the output. > > The source is the answer, but you might as well split it up (see below) > > > If you use such a setup command multiple times, in what cases, if any, > > do the specifications cumulate? Or do you always have to specify > > everything from scratch? > > No, everything cumulates, because everything is turned into a macro. A > new definition just overwrites the previous definition, all other > definitions remain there. > > > > Sometimes a construct `parameter=key1,key2' seems to work and sometimes > > it doesn't. Right now, I don't have an example handy so if you think > > I'm wrong then I can save this question until I run into such a case. > > I usually use \setupitemize twice. The first one with just the options, > and the next the key=value pairs. That works well: > > \setupitemize[...] > \setupitemize[key=value] > > > Groetjes, > > Berend. (-: So the number of brackets doesn't necessarily mean anything? Another obscure point is when you want to apply more than one `value-keyword', e.g. if you want a small bold sectionhead. I tried the following constructs: \setuphead[mysection][style=bold] \setuphead[mysection][style=small] This produces small headers. Apparently, values for a single keyword are not accumulated. Well, this is more or less what Berend was saying. \setuphead[mysection[style={bold,small}] Doesn't work either; it puts the text `bold,smallbold,small' before both the section number and the section title. I seem to remember that in some other cases such a construct DOES produce the desired effect. Am I missing something? (Of course, in this particular case there are other ways to do it.) Siep ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: notation 2000-08-11 20:46 ` notation siepo @ 2000-08-12 7:54 ` Berend de Boer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Berend de Boer @ 2000-08-12 7:54 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ntg-context siepo@client44-3.kabelA.oprit.rug.nl wrote: > So the number of brackets doesn't necessarily mean anything? Some brackets are optional (they're in italics). > Another obscure point is when you want to apply more than one > `value-keyword', e.g. if you want a small bold sectionhead. I tried > the following constructs: > > \setuphead[mysection][style=bold] > \setuphead[mysection][style=small] > > This produces small headers. Apparently, values for a single keyword > are not accumulated. Well, this is more or less what Berend was > saying. > > \setuphead[mysection[style={bold,small}] The style is really a single macro and really is an alias for a font switch. What you want it to do is: \def\style{\bold\small} But it doesn't work that way. Say something like: \setuphead [mysection] [style={\switchtobodyfont[small]\bf}] Groetjes, Berend. (-: > > Doesn't work either; it puts the text `bold,smallbold,small' before > both the section number and the section title. I seem to remember that > in some other cases such a construct DOES produce the desired > effect. Am I missing something? (Of course, in this particular case > there are other ways to do it.) > > Siep ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-08-12 7:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2000-08-11 16:58 notation siepo [not found] ` <3994357D.CFF4E014@pobox.com> 2000-08-11 20:46 ` notation siepo 2000-08-12 7:54 ` notation Berend de Boer
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).