From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/10547 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Re: Buffers and grouping Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:30:17 +0100 Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20030126222820.04752008@remote-1> References: <000b01c2c53b$d1e2a8b0$0100a8c0@vademecum> <000b01c2c53b$d1e2a8b0$0100a8c0@vademecum> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1043617291 1180 80.91.224.249 (26 Jan 2003 21:41:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 21:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18cuWw-0000It-00 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:41:30 +0100 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2535B10B2F; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:43:10 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from smtp08.wxs.nl (smtp08.wxs.nl [195.121.6.40]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CDE10AFF for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:37:48 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from LAPTOP-3.wxs.nl ([213.75.94.86]) by smtp08.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id H9CC2R00.ZBZ for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:37:39 +0100 X-Sender: hagen-mail@remote-1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl In-Reply-To: <87znpox9xc.fsf@gundla.ch> Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:10547 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:10547 At 03:28 PM 1/26/2003 +0100, you wrote: >"Willi Egger" writes: > >Hello Willi, > > > > I thought that \startbuffer and stopbuffer would cause grouping within the > > buffer. e.g. > >that is what I've thought, too. wrong thought, that way we could do much less with them, for instance no style stuff, and far less use in my manuals where i use them all over the place -) >You can of course say > >\setupbuffer[before=\bgroup,after=\egroup] > >to make them grouping. hm, better create a buffer instance then since i'm not sure what happens if *all* buffers get grouped. or use {\getbuffer} 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------