Subject: Re: [NTG-context] problem embedding TABLE macros within wrapper ma= cros "to reduce repetitive complexity") Rudd, Kevin schrieb am 08.09.2020 um 19:50: I have a number of slides using \...framedtext blocks to break the slides i= nto panes within a TABLE environment (TMI: not in MWE; merely my justificat= ion for writing the wrapper macros). When the TABLE macros are invoked expl= icitly it all works fine and produces a suitable single-cell table with "qu= ux blech baz bar foo" framed; when embedded in macros (whether defined by \= def, \unexpanded\def, \define) then it fails with the error "The file ended= when scanning an argument. =3D> fatal error: return code: 256. A previous = question on the topic seemed to indicate that TABLE was suitable, so I figu= re that something subtle is wrong as I've invoked the embedded TABLE macros= . Any suggestions? While most natural tables command can be embedded within other command the = cells have to see the end command. I guess this shouldn't be a problem for your case because something simpler= can be used to create your desired layout but you have to provide more inf= ormation: 1. Are there blocks side by side or do you stack them only vertically? 2. Do you need a frame around each block? 3. Are (small) gaps between the blocks allowed? Wolfgang --_000_DM5PR15MB192969428401DDC6188A47B4F1290DM5PR15MB1929namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks. The immediate goal is to make a =94q= uad chart=94 w/ different pains in the four (2x2 =3D> NW, NE, SW, SE) qu= adrants. It seemed that the concept was scalable to any NxM (even with mult= i-cell spreads---useful for larger structured posters) based on TABLE. But I'd settle for 2x2 at the moment; at one poin= t I'd thought of 2x2+1 having a spanning block for publication referenc= es per slide but decided a separate publications slide was a better idea vi= sualy..

If they have to see an end command, would be= fore/after tags work around a framedtext or buffer structure?

1. 2x2 panes, layout order not important, al= l panes independent; no flow (like Framemaker used to do) requiredbetween pa= nes.

2. was going to have inner frames (i.e. += ; frame for 2x2 which was trivial to specify in TABLE) to separate the pane= s

3. other than wanting the + frame, inner= margins &c. for panes wsn't an issue either way.

Best,

---K

Kevin W. Rudd, Ph.D.

CAPT, USN (Ret)

Computer Architecture & Engineering (CAE= )

Advanced Computing Systems (ACS) Research Pr= ogram

Laboratory for Physical Sciences (LPS)

443-654-7878

kevin@lps.umd.edu

Visiting Research Professor

Electrical and Computer Engineering

United States Naval Academy

rudd@usna.edu

From: Wolfgang Schuster <= ;wolfgang.schuster.lists@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 4:31:38 PM
To: mailing list for ConTeXt users <ntg-context@ntg.nl>
Cc: Rudd, Kevin <kevin@lps.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: [NTG-context] problem embedding TABLE macros within wra= pper macros "to reduce repetitive complexity")

Rudd, Kevin schrieb am 08.09.2020 um 19:50:

I have a number of slides using \...framedtext blocks to br= eak the slides into panes within a TABLE environment (TMI: not in MWE; mere= ly my justification for writing the wrapper macros). When the TABLE macros = are invoked explicitly it all works fine and produces a suitable single-cell table with "quux blech baz b= ar foo" framed; when embedded in macros (whether defined by \def, \une= xpanded\def, \define) then it fails with the error "The file ended whe= n scanning an argument. =3D> fatal error: return code: 256. A previous question on the topic seemed to indicate that TABLE = was suitable, so I figure that something subtle is wrong as I've invoked th= e embedded TABLE macros. Any suggestions?

While most natural tables command can be embedded within other command the = cells have to see the end command.

I guess this shouldn't be a problem for your case because something simpler= can be used to create your desired layout but you have to provide more inf= ormation:

1. Are there blocks side by side or do you stack them only vertically?

2. Do you need a frame around each block?

3. Are (small) gaps between the blocks allowed?

Wolfgang

--_000_DM5PR15MB192969428401DDC6188A47B4F1290DM5PR15MB1929namp_-- --===============2794923767059895828== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KSWYgeW91ciBxdWVzdGlvbiBpcyBvZiBpbnRlcmVz dCB0byBvdGhlcnMgYXMgd2VsbCwgcGxlYXNlIGFkZCBhbiBlbnRyeSB0byB0aGUgV2lraSEKCm1h aWxsaXN0IDogbnRnLWNvbnRleHRAbnRnLm5sIC8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5udGcubmwvbWFpbG1hbi9s aXN0aW5mby9udGctY29udGV4dAp3ZWJwYWdlICA6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucHJhZ21hLWFkZS5ubCAv IGh0dHA6Ly9jb250ZXh0LmFhbmhldC5uZXQKYXJjaGl2ZSAgOiBodHRwczovL2JpdGJ1Y2tldC5v cmcvcGhnL2NvbnRleHQtbWlycm9yL2NvbW1pdHMvCndpa2kgICAgIDogaHR0cDovL2NvbnRleHRn YXJkZW4ubmV0Cl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCg== --===============2794923767059895828==--