From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/908 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ecashin@coe.uga.edu (Ed L. Cashin) Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: text vs command at end of itemize Date: 12 Sep 1999 22:23:08 -0400 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: References: <37DADAD4.3ECA10F3@wxs.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035391748 28232 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:49:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ConTeXt mailing list Original-To: Hans Hagen Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:908 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:908 Hans Hagen writes: > "Ed L. Cashin" wrote: > > > I've noticed a strange effect at the end of an itemized list. > > Beginning the line that follows the list with a command seems to > > conflict with the "after" option: > > > \stopitemize > > > > \in{Item}[nomotion2] is a bit hard to accomplish. > > This is not so much with the after option, but more a side effect of > indentation, everypar, etc etc. and the moment when tex decides to enter > horizontal mode. > > Some solutions are: \indent \noindent \strut \leavevmode > > The problem is that all of hese have unwanted side effects, > especially \leavevmode can badly interfere with vertical spacing > (which is one reason why so many tex documents have sub optimal > vertical spacing. I've been getting by with "\null". Would null have those side effects? I suppose so. > You can precede the \in by \dontleavehmode. This is a rather funny > macro: {\ifmmode\else$ $\fi} with not so many side effects. That *is* pretty strange. :) "Don't do anything if we're in math mode. If we're not in math mode, do nothing in math mode. Is that the gist of it? -- --Ed Cashin ecashin@coe.uga.edu