About itemize

About itemize

[Idris S Hamid]

Dear posse,

The itemize environment has  a strange feature/bug:

---------------
\startitemize
\item Here is some text
\stopitemize
%
Here is some text that SHOULD NOT be indented
---------------

produces the same indentation as

----------------
\startitemize
\item Here is some text
\stopitemize

Here is some text that SHOULD be indented
----------------
 
and even more puzzling:

----------------
\startitemize
\item Here is some text\par
\stopitemize\par

Here is some text that should REALLY be indented
----------------

Could someone please explain how I can get text skipping a line after the 
itemize environment to automatically indent without a manual \indent every 
time? Sorry if I'm clueless here:-)

Thnx in advance
Idris

-- 
Dr. Idris S Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523

Re: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Monday, November 11, 2002 Idris S Hamid wrote:

ISH> Dear posse,

ISH> The itemize environment has  a strange feature/bug:

(This should answer your "quotation" question too, at least
partly)

All "blocks" have this bug; IIRC it comes from Hans preference of
spacey "readable" sources; this means all \par tokens after a
\stop are globbed, and (IIRC) a new paragraph is always started:
thus the indentnext option *always* take place. IOW, you cannot
have one of these blocks *within* a paragraph.

Hans, am I right?

Well, if I am, this is absolutely wrong. Presence or absence of
\pars before and after should not be ignored, or at least should
be made an option. My workaround for now is to use \nulls after
\stop... commands, but this is somewhat clunky.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: About itemize

[Hans Hagen]

At 10:31 PM 11/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>Monday, November 11, 2002 Idris S Hamid wrote:
>
>ISH> Dear posse,
>
>ISH> The itemize environment has  a strange feature/bug:
>
>(This should answer your "quotation" question too, at least
>partly)
>
>All "blocks" have this bug; IIRC it comes from Hans preference of
>spacey "readable" sources; this means all \par tokens after a
>\stop are globbed, and (IIRC) a new paragraph is always started:
>thus the indentnext option *always* take place. IOW, you cannot
>have one of these blocks *within* a paragraph.
>
>Hans, am I right?
>
>Well, if I am, this is absolutely wrong. Presence or absence of
>\pars before and after should not be ignored, or at least should
>be made an option. My workaround for now is to use \nulls after
>\stop... commands, but this is somewhat clunky.

first of all, we're not dealing with a bug, it's a feature; so, if some 
other behavior is wanted, it should be an option of extension to existing 
mechanisms, nog a replacement.

there is one thing we should keep in mind: naive users are not always aware 
of tex's empty line == par, so this is why \start/\stop things are 
consistent in absense or presense of them;

distinguishing between display and semi-display is therefore not that 
trivial, and the best option is separate environments, like

   \startquotation ... \stopquotation

(or \startdquotation ... \stopdquotation for display quotation) versus

   \startpquotation ... \stoppquotation

for an in-paragraph one (like we have with formulas, see core-mat.tex)

that way, one knows what to expect, since it's clear from the coding, and 
not from a (forgotten, or accidental) empty line

another option is to have a dedidated environment

\startinparagraph ... \stopinparagraph

or \startcontinue ... \stopcontinue

which nills the surrounding whitespace and inhibits the next indent. (this 
should be not that hard to implement)

Hans


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re[2]: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

HH> first of all, we're not dealing with a bug, it's a feature; so, if some 
HH> other behavior is wanted, it should be an option of extension to existing 
HH> mechanisms, nog a replacement.

HH> there is one thing we should keep in mind: naive users are not always aware 
HH> of tex's empty line == par, so this is why \start/\stop things are 
HH> consistent in absense or presense of them;

HH> distinguishing between display and semi-display is therefore not that 
HH> trivial, and the best option is separate environments, like

HH>    \startquotation ... \stopquotation

HH> (or \startdquotation ... \stopdquotation for display quotation) versus

HH>    \startpquotation ... \stoppquotation

HH> for an in-paragraph one (like we have with formulas, see core-mat.tex)

HH> that way, one knows what to expect, since it's clear from the coding, and 
HH> not from a (forgotten, or accidental) empty line

HH> another option is to have a dedidated environment

HH> \startinparagraph ... \stopinparagraph

HH> or \startcontinue ... \stopcontinue

HH> which nills the surrounding whitespace and inhibits the next indent. (this 
HH> should be not that hard to implement)

This latter alternative sounds awfully 'redundant' (too much code
for a simple thing); the first sounds somewhat better, but the
best solution IMO is to have an option/conditional \obeypars or
something like that. When true, empty lines after startstops
denote paragraph and lack of empty lines denote "remaining in the
same paragraph"; when false, current ConTeXt behaviour is kept.

Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option
(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global
\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).

Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global
option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in
startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false
(force false), default (behave according to the global setting).

Does this sound sensible?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re[2]: About itemize

[Hans Hagen]

At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option
>(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global
>\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
>
>Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global
>option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in
>startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false
>(force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
>
>Does this sound sensible?

hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so

concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more 
control and suits today's way of coding

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re[3]: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>>Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option
>>(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global
>>\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
>>
>>Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global
>>option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in
>>startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false
>>(force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
>>
>>Does this sound sensible?

HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so

Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to
skip the next \par or not ...

HH> concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more 
HH> control and suits today's way of coding

Awfully verbose. Wrist-heavy. Definitely not the way to go (btw
that's the reason why I *hate* XML). It *requires* a tuned editor
which will insert the code for you, to reach the same productivity
level.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re[3]: About itemize

[Hans Hagen]

At 03:08 PM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
>
>HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >>Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option
> >>(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global
> >>\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
> >>
> >>Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global
> >>option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in
> >>startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false
> >>(force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
> >>
> >>Does this sound sensible?
>
>HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips 
>and so
>
>Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to
>skip the next \par or not ...

well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index commands 
look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'?

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re[4]: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

>>Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to
>>skip the next \par or not ...

HH> well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index commands 
HH> look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'?

Uhm. Ok, let's get at it slowly. I don't know how it works
internally, but regadless of this, the behaviour seems to be the
same regardless of wether I leave an empty line after the \stop,
or not (and also before the \start, or not). Do \starts and \stops
automatically force a new paragraph all the time?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re[4]: About itemize

[Hans Hagen]

At 11:12 PM 11/12/2002 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

>Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
>
> >>Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to
> >>skip the next \par or not ...
>
>HH> well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index 
>commands
>HH> look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'?
>
>Uhm. Ok, let's get at it slowly. I don't know how it works
>internally, but regadless of this, the behaviour seems to be the
>same regardless of wether I leave an empty line after the \stop,
>or not (and also before the \start, or not). Do \starts and \stops
>automatically force a new paragraph all the time?

only when before=\blank or so, but some commands do an \par themselves 
because they assume to be display material,

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re[5]: About itemize

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:

HH> only when before=\blank or so, but some commands do an \par themselves
HH> because they assume to be display material,

Are formulas and itemizations among these?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Re: About itemize

[Idris S Hamid]

Ok, guys, what should I do? The really funny thing is that I need TWO \indents 
to get indentation after a \stopitemize:

\startitemize
\item Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text 
      Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text
\stopitemize

%\indent
\indent 
Here is some UNINDENTED text

There has got to be a better way...

Is there some typographical rule that says you have to start a new paragraph 
with no indentation after an itemized list? (Even so it should be easier to 
override...)

Best 
Idris

-- 
Dr. Idris S Hamid
Department of Philosophy
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523