Re: Suitable mechanism for Theorems and Definitions

[Taco Hoekwater <taco@elvenkind.com>]

Hi David,

I saw this post and thought: "didn't I have a similar problem a while
back"? And yes, I did, while I was stil working for Kluwer Academic.

The "a while" turned out to be around 1999, and the code (hack) I
used back then is no longer even remotely usable (for one because
context was still in dutch, then), but I'll see if I can update my
patch.

Taco

David Antos wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'll try to be more exact in my question to prevent empty answer now :-)
> 
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 11:48:34AM +0200, David Antos wrote:
> 
>>I've used enumeration features for typesetting Theorems, Lemmas, and
>>Definitions. Two extra requirements appeared. Is this possible to create
>>lists of those entities (something like \placelistofTheorems :-)?
>>
>>And is there a way to add names to them, resulting in something like
>>
>>Definition 4.3: Interval Decision Diagram Node
>>blahblah
> 
> 
> What I need is to enrich enumerations by the possibility to write into
> list. How can I get the number of the current enumeration? The resulting
> list should be something like
> Definition 4.3 ....... pagenumber
> 
> I've managed something like
> \expanded{\writetolist[MyList]{\precedingsectionnumber\numberTheorem}{}}}
> (hooked into inbetween of defineenumeration) work, but it works for the
> first level of enumerations only (i.e., not for \subdefinition) (well, I
> don't mind it so much, but there should be a better way indeed). What is
> the "politically-correct" way of obtaining the "4.3" number?
> 
> Second: I want some of the definitions to have names (to appear in the
> list, too). The idea now is to re-define \startDefinition so that it
> 1. globaly defines a macro for the content of the name
> 2. the old \startDefinition will typeset
> Definition 4.3: Interval Decision Diagram Node
> and puts
> Definition 4.3 (Interval ...) ... pagenumber
> into the list, both by means of hooking into "inbetween".
> 
> Is this "simple enough" or is there a better way to do this? BTW, is it
> reasonable to enrich enumerations with the possibility to create lists and
> with "names"? What would be great for things like definitions and lemmas is
> something that combines descriptions (that have names but no numbering) and
> enumerations (that have exactly the opposite features).
> 
> Thank you,
> D.A.
>