notation

notation

[siepo]

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

Re: notation

[siepo]

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

Re: notation

[Berend de Boer]

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