From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/898 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: text vs command at end of itemize Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:42:28 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <37DADAD4.3ECA10F3@wxs.nl> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035391736 28069 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:48:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:48:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ConTeXt mailing list Original-To: "Ed L. Cashin" Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:898 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:898 "Ed L. Cashin" wrote: > I've noticed a strange effect at the end of an itemized list. > Beginning the line that follows the list with a command seems to > conflict with the "after" option: > \stopitemize > > \in{Item}[nomotion2] is a bit hard to accomplish. This is not so much with the after option, but more a side effect of indentation, everypar, etc etc. and the moment when tex decides to enter horizontal mode. Some solutions are: \indent \noindent \strut \leavevmode The problem is that all of hese have unwanted side effects, especially \leavevmode can badly interfere with vertical spacing (which is one reason why so many tex documents have sub optimal vertical spacing. You can precede the \in by \dontleavehmode. This is a rather funny macro: {\ifmmode\else$ $\fi} with not so many side effects. I still have my doubts about adding this one to for instance \in alike macros, but maybe I should. 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------