Re: [***SPAM***] YATM (Yet Another Table Method)

[Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>]

On 9/9/2013 9:13 AM, Procházka Lukáš Ing. - Pontex s. r. o. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> just one user's point of view:
>
> There are many table-creating commands.
>
> Some of them are deprecated and only supported for backward compatibility.

they are not deprecated at all

- table: a rather traditional, close to tex alignment mechanism
- tabulate: quite good for text, breaks across pages nicely, i use that 
one myself most of the time (i might redo it one time)
- TABLE: to some extend html compatible, originally meant for uise in 
combination with xml, but also useable in tex (somewhat slow)
- xtable: a follow up on TABLE (with some strong points but also some 
limitations)

> It seemed to me till now that natural tables (provided by \...TABLE...
> commands) were best choice as they are versatile, they have friendly
> setup, they may be split over more pages (with repeating header/footer)
> and (almost each feature) may be specified individually for row, column
> or even cell.
>
> It seemed to that nothing more user might wish.

i must admit that i only use it in combination with xml -)

> (And - as "more complicated", i.e. more typing to enter them, Lua helps
> in this situation.)
>
> Now, we have xtables which have the same functionality as TABLEs, or a
> bit more.
> But - (?) xtables have a bit "poorer" setup options (so far? - By
> Wolfgang's answer).

hm, in fact the configuration options are better; it doesn't have the 
x,y setup but named rows, cells and row/cellgroups are quite ok

>> Do you plan to add something equivalent to
>> \setupTABLE[<row>][<column>][<settings>]
>> because xtables lack the function to set values for certain rows/columns.

not on the agenda (one can use symbolic names of setups which is more 
powerful that hard coded numbers)

>> Wolfgang
>
> The "more" is - named cells? Faster rendering?
>
> IMHO - wouldn't be better to extend TABLEs to be as good as xtables
> (i.e. - add named cells)?

no, as it would be even slower .. i also tend not to touch TABLE to much 
as it is used in workflows that demand stability

> Or to unify xtables and TABLEs - make xtables and TABLEs have the same
> functionality and options, and make their names/commands synonyms?
>
> - When I started using Ctx, there were so many tabling commands and I
> always had to compare their possibilities to select one; and to check
> whether the chosen "tabler" is not deprecated.
>
> So I ended up with TABLEs (and Lua).
>
> Now, it seems to me that TABLEs will become deprecated, being replaced
> with xtables...

it will never be deprecated but i might have missed an announcement -)

Hans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
               Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
     tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
                                              | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________