Re: Re: Learning ConTeXt, typical hurdle

[Gerben Wierda <Gerben.Wierda@rna.nl>]

On 13 Mar 2005, at 23:27, h h extern wrote:

> Gerben Wierda wrote:
>>> Hey Gerben,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now what turns out to solve this? Empty lines before \description 
>>>> and
>>>> \stopdescriptions
>>>
>>> Things that were defined using \definedescription rely on \par as a
>>> delimiter.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Though I like ConTeXt if I look at certain design aspects, behaviour
>>>> that
>>>> depends on whitespace before a command frightens me.
>>>
>>> Just the way it works :-) Nothing to worry about.
>> What this introduces is that the working of the ascii file depends on 
>> its
>> layout. I can understand that an empty line does a \par (it is 
>> convenient
>> after all) but I would see that kind of behaviour kept to a minimum. 
>> That
>> is, now I have this 'invisible' element that is needed to close my
>> structure. It is something quite unexpected for me in a TeX workflow.
>> Different layout because of a missing empty line, fine. But an error
>> message and a halt really surprises me. Another part of a learning 
>> curve
>> which if you want adoption you should try to avoid. But maybe it is
>> impossible to make ConTeXt more 'forgiving'.
>> The alternative is \startdescription\stopdescription which is 
>> logically
>> nicer, but adds inconvenience to the typing/editing
>> IMO LaTeX here does a better user-interface job (not just because I 
>> happen
>> to know LaTeX). Withing the description environment \item starts a new
>> item and the item ends with the start of another item or the end of 
>> the
>> environment. Completely independent of the layout of the ascii file.
>> It would IMO be a lot friendlier if my \stopdescriptions and 
>> \description
>> commands would take care of this and I could do things like:
>> \startdescriptions
>> \description{Foo} Bar bar bar
>> \description{Foo} Bar bar bar
>> \description{Foo} Bar bar bar
>> \stopdescriptions
>> without triggering an error.
>
> this could be made working to some extend, but it would complicate the 
> code; this mechanism actually is implemented so that it can handle:
>
> \starttext
>
> \definedescription[test]
>
> \test oeps whow \par
>
> \test oeps
>
> whow
>
> \test {oeps} whow \par
>
> \test {oeps} whow \par
>
> \starttest {oeps} whow \stoptest
>
> \stoptext
>
> nowadays i tend to more verbose coding; anyhow, we can add something
>
> \unprotect
>
> \def\startdescriptions
>   {\dosingleempty\dostartdescriptions}
>
> \def\dostartdescriptions[#1]%
>   {\begingroup
>    \def\item{\getvalue{#1}}%
>    \let\dostoppairdescription \donothing
>    \let\@@description         \dostartpairdescription
>    \let\@@startsomedescription\dostartsomedescription}
>
> \def\stopdescriptions
>   {\dostoppairdescription
>    \endgroup}
>
> \def\dostartpairdescription[#1][#2]%
>   {\dostoppairdescription
>    \def\dostoppairdescription{\@@stopdescription{#1}}%
>    \bgroup
>    \def\currentdescription{#1}%
>    \doifelse{\descriptionparameter{\s!do\c!state}}\v!start
>      {\@@makedescription{#1}[#2]{}}
>      {\@@makedescription{#1}[#2]}}
>
> \def\dostartsomedescription % #1[#2]#3%
>   {\bgroup
>    \@@makedescription} % {#1}[#2]{#3}}
>
> \protect
>
> \starttext
>
> \definedescription[test]
>
> \startdescriptions
> \test{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \test{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \test{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \stopdescriptions
>
> \startdescriptions
> \starttest{Foo} Bar bar bar \stoptest
> \starttest{Foo} Bar bar bar \stoptest
> \starttest{Foo} Bar bar bar \stoptest
> \stopdescriptions
>
> \startdescriptions[test]
> \item{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \item{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \item{Foo} Bar bar bar
> \stopdescriptions
>
> \stoptext
>
> for those who have problems adapting; so, what does the general 
> context public think of such an extension?

Apart from adapting, the \startitemize \stopitemize does not require me 
to have a \par at the end. That is also confusing.

G