* 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
* 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).