Question regarding context's module defintion

Question regarding context's module defintion

[Aditya Mahajan]

Are users supposed to use %D kind of remarks to comment their own 
environment files? I am finding it a bit strange to work with. Does 
one have to leave a blank line after a %D line for that line to 
appear?

Consider the test file
%D \module
%D  [file=test.tex,
%D   version=0.0,
%D   title=Test File,
%D   subtitle=Blah blah,
%D   author=Aditya Mahajan,
%D   date=\currentdate]


%D Explaination for the next macro does not work
\def\test{test}

%D \macros{test}
%D Neither does this.
\def\test{test}

%D Leaving a blank space also works

\def\test{test}

-----------------------

and look at the output of texmfstart texexec --modules test.tex. Why 
are the first two macro definitions not in the pdf?

Aditya

Re: Question regarding context's module defintion

[Hans Hagen]

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> Are users supposed to use %D kind of remarks to comment their own 
> environment files? I am finding it a bit strange to work with. Does 
>   
well, it has been so for a long time; originally there were also %S 
lines for the formal command definitions

anyhow, the %D is used to signal text that wil be typeset in a 
'documentation run'

in the editor that i use, i can remove/add %D's on a selection, so it's 
no real burden
> one have to leave a blank line after a %D line for that line to 
> appear?
>   
no, but it's just that i like a spacy layout; if it does not work, then 
there is a bug in ctxtools
> Consider the test file
> %D \module
> %D  [file=test.tex,
> %D   version=0.0,
> %D   title=Test File,
> %D   subtitle=Blah blah,
> %D   author=Aditya Mahajan,
> %D   date=\currentdate]
>
>
> %D Explaination for the next macro does not work
> \def\test{test}
>
> %D \macros{test}
> %D Neither does this.
> \def\test{test}
>
> %D Leaving a blank space also works
>
> \def\test{test}
>
> -----------------------
>
> and look at the output of texmfstart texexec --modules test.tex. Why 
> are the first two macro definitions not in the pdf?
>   

in ctxtools.rb, locate:

                                    inlocaldocument = indocument
                                    inlocaldocument = false # else first 
line skipped when not empty

please test all kind of variants (there most have been a reason for 
this, so it may as well be a bug related to translating from perl to ruby)

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.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Question regarding context's module defintion

[Aditya Mahajan]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Hans Hagen wrote:

> Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>> Are users supposed to use %D kind of remarks to comment their own
>> environment files? I am finding it a bit strange to work with. Does
>>
> well, it has been so for a long time; originally there were also %S
> lines for the formal command definitions
>
> anyhow, the %D is used to signal text that wil be typeset in a
> 'documentation run'
>
> in the editor that i use, i can remove/add %D's on a selection, so it's
> no real burden
>> one have to leave a blank line after a %D line for that line to
>> appear?
>>
> no, but it's just that i like a spacy layout; if it does not work, then
> there is a bug in ctxtools
>>
>> [code deleted]
>> 
>> and look at the output of texmfstart texexec --modules test.tex. Why
>> are the first two macro definitions not in the pdf?
>>
>
> in ctxtools.rb, locate:
>
>                                    inlocaldocument = indocument
>                                    inlocaldocument = false # else first
> line skipped when not empty
>
> please test all kind of variants (there most have been a reason for
> this, so it may as well be a bug related to translating from perl to ruby)

>From the code, I can not understand why inlocaldocument is there. 
Setting indocument to false works as expected. This is equivalent to 
removing inlocaldocument completely (the unless inlocaldocument is 
always run). I will do some more elaborate tests to check is anything 
breaks.

Should the test-suite contain tests for ruby scripts also?

Aditya

Re: Question regarding context's module defintion

[Hans Hagen]

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
>
> Should the test-suite contain tests for ruby scripts also?
>   
for some of the functionality that makes sense indeed 

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.com
                                             | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------