Re: decriptions

[Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>]

Wybo Dekker wrote:

> That's exactly what I meant. Yet a few remarks:
> 1: why allow a mix of `item' and `description'? Just `item' would suffice

Because item is a context command already. I added \item for convenience
only. The 'description' comman dis now defined outside the
'descriptions' environment, and therefore also available outside there,
while that \item equivalent is only available inside. You get
\description for free. (If I would have used \item, itemize would fail,
and if I would define it inside the environemt, you cannot change
characteristics. Now you can change for instance the font: \setup....
[description][headstyle=slanted]

> 2: the only need for the \startdescription/\stopdescription pair I see
>    is that it allows for more than 1 paragraph in a description/item. Latex
>    allows for that without extra's.  And it always separates

Context also so, unless you want to do something fance, and then
additional grouping is needed. 

>    paragraphs in lists with an empty line and with no parindent. And
>    if one doesn't want the empty line: use \\
>    I like that behaviour.

It goes beyond that. One can set the font for the description text for
instance [style=].

So: 

\whatever {item} text \par|emptyline more text \par|empty line

can handle the 'item' and 'text' but not 'more text' (this is tex), but 

\startwhatever {item} text \par more text \stopwhatever

handles 'text' and 'more text'

> > I think it makes sense to add such latex counterparts to a specific
> > module m-latex or so. If needed, with some \begin \end alike
> > substitutes, like
> 
> [...]
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to emulate latex in context. It just
> makes people to stick with latex instead of thinking the context way.
> 
> You should do two things:
> 1: make context alternatives for things that people like in latex, but
>    only if they are right in your view.

Sure. So actually I should remove the \item and stick to \description. 

> 2: give people hints about how they can do the things they did in
>    latex better in context.

Ok. 

> A final question:
> As Hans now generously generates new code for me in English, while I
> started my book in Dutch (which was the language used during the
> course). I decided to translate the book into english, using my `tran'
> perlscript. But that doesn't find translations for:
> 
> \startstandaardopmaak
> \stopstandaardopmaak
> \volledigeinhoudsopgave
> 
> Those words are not in mult-co[mn].tex. Howcome?

They are made up by \definemakeup[...]. Some commands adapt themselves
to the interface. One can for instance say 'bychapter' and
'perhoofdstuk' and here context composes keywords. You can find them in
the elements sections, so if you let 'tran' scan the \startelements part
too, you're done. For converience I can split the elements into those
used in setup<something> and start<something>. Some can be found in
variables. 

It makes sense to draw a list of the ones defined that way. Not so many.
Can be dummy entries in mult-com. I'll think of it. 

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
              Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
      tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------