From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/18928 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerben Wierda Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Re: Learning ConTeXt, typical hurdle Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3ca4ba6b1f86a2b23ac086d17901bae2@rna.nl> References: <60028.213.84.141.31.1110461682.squirrel@213.84.141.31> <60915.213.84.141.31.1110470951.squirrel@213.84.141.31> <4234BE37.6000405@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1110782614 28446 80.91.229.2 (14 Mar 2005 06:43:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Mon Mar 14 07:43:34 2005 Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DAjIS-0002qO-KT for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:43:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3584B1285B; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:22 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03028-02; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:18 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D13127E5; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:17 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6AD127E5 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:16 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02999-02 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:15 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from post-22.mail.nl.demon.net (post-22.mail.nl.demon.net [194.159.73.192]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914F6127E3 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:15 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from ii2.demon.nl ([82.161.98.36]:24236 helo=mail.rna.nl) by post-22.mail.nl.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DAjJH-0001NB-99 for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 06:44:15 +0000 Original-Received: from [192.168.2.87] (hermione-a.rna.nl [192.168.2.87]) by mail.rna.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48F46CFF6 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:44:14 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <4234BE37.6000405@wxs.nl> Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-MailScanner-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-MailScanner-To: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:18928 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:18928 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