Re: [NTG-context] \setupitemize[indentnext=auto] broken?

[Carlos via ntg-context <ntg-context@ntg.nl>]

On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 01:24:08PM -0300, Jim via ntg-context wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 08:28 (-0400), Carlos via ntg-context wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 02:27:56PM -0300, Jim via ntg-context wrote:
> >> In the wiki page https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Indentation there is the
> >> following example:
> 
> >> %------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >> \setupindenting[medium,yes]
> >> \setupitemize[indentnext=auto]
> 
> >>   \startitemize
> >>     \item One
> >>   \stopitemize
> 
> >> This paragraph should be indented - due to the blank line after \type{\stopitemize}.
> 
> >>   \startitemize
> >>     \item Two
> >>   \stopitemize
> >> This paragraph should not be indented.
> 
> >> %------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> >> Tragically, the paragraph which claims it should be indented is not, in
> >> both my test and the wiki page itself.
> 
> >> Is this a documentation bug, a ConTeXt bug, or something else yet?
> 
> > I don't know.
> 
> OK, but I wasn't asking you specifically.

Thnt's more than obvious, asshole. Or passive-aggressive asshole.

You're posting it on the mailing list for the users, devs, and
end-users alike to test it out as required and comment or say whatever
they want.

> 
> > Why would it be a documentation bug if it clearly says it should be
> > indented only after the blank line, unless \indent was omitted on purpose
> > while trying to make it look as if the blank line would have any effect
> > after all.  Makes no sense.
> 
> Have you never run into a documentation bug before?  Happy you!
> 
> I see two possibly reasons for a documentation bug here (there might be more):
> (1) The documentation was incorrect at time of writing.  Humans have been
>     known to make mistakes.
> (2) The semantics of \setupitemize might have changed since the documentation
>     was written, and the change has not yet been reflected in this
>     particular piece of documentation.
>     This would not be the first time that documentation changes lagged
>     behind code changes.
> 

Neither one. 

> The point is, there is a disconnect between the documentation says will
> happen and what actually happens.  I don't know which is wrong, and thus my
> question.  I hope that sooner or later someone who can definitively comment
> on the disconnect will speak up.

I agree. :) 

> 
> > \setupindenting[medium,yes]
> > \setupitemize[indentnext=auto]
> 
> > \starttext
> >   \startitemize
> >     \item One
> >   \stopitemize\indent%blank line
> 
> > This paragraph should be indented - due to the blank line after \type{\stopitemize}.
> 
> >   \startitemize
> >     \item Two
> >   \stopitemize
> 
> > \noindent{\dorecurse{10}{\indent This paragraph should not be indented.}}
> > \stoptext
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
> 
> maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
> wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
> ___________________________________________________________________________________
> 

-- 
To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : https://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________