Re: [NTG-context] (MkVI) Regression in named parameters, TL2013 to current
Am 01.03.2014 um 04:39 schrieb Rik Kabel cont...@rik.users.panix.com:
And as I wrote in the first note, accepting non-letters (that is, other than
the basic unaccented Aa–Zz) makes delimited parameter patterns difficult to
use with Mark VI parameter names. Thus, we have the situation described in
the following example, when in fact all should work without error (as I
understand it, but perhaps \starttexdefinition has other limits of which I am
not aware).
% macros=mkvi
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #1¦#2.
% #1, #2!
%\stopdefinition
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #PARAM¦#ETER.
% #PARAM, #ETER!
%\stopdefinition
1. You have a spelling error in the stop command.
2. Put braces around the argument names.
% macros=mkvi
\starttexdefinition Test #{PARAM}¦#{ETER}.
#{PARAM}, #{ETER}!
\stoptexdefinition
\starttext
\Test No soap¦{radio}.
\stoptext
Wolfgang___
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
___
Re: [NTG-context] (MkVI) Regression in named parameters, TL2013 to current
On 2014-03-01 04:59, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 01.03.2014 um 04:39 schrieb Rik Kabel cont...@rik.users.panix.com
mailto:cont...@rik.users.panix.com:
And as I wrote in the first note, accepting non-letters (that is,
other than the basic unaccented Aa--Zz) makes delimited parameter
patterns difficult to use with Mark VI parameter names. Thus, we have
the situation described in the following example, when in fact all
should work without error (as I understand it, but perhaps
\starttexdefinition has other limits of which I am not aware).
% macros=mkvi
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #1¦#2.
% #1, #2!
%\stopdefinition
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #PARAM¦#ETER.
% #PARAM, #ETER!
%\stopdefinition
1. You have a spelling error in the stop command.
2. Put braces around the argument names.
% macros=mkvi
\starttexdefinition Test #{PARAM}¦#{ETER}.
#{PARAM}, #{ETER}!
\stoptexdefinition
\starttext
\Test No soap¦{radio}.
\stoptext
Wolfgang
Thank you, Wolfgang, for that. My usual mistake there is to type
stoptextdefinition, with an extra t.
--
Rik
___
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
___
[NTG-context] (MkVI) Regression in named parameters, TL2013 to current
% macros=mkvi
\setupwhitespace[small]
\def\ä^?z{Ä^?}
\def\Named[#PARAMETERNAME]{¦#PARAMETERNAME¦}
\def\Numbered[#1]{¦#1¦}
\starttext
\subject{Regression between TL2013 and current beta}
There does appear to have been some change or regression in the
definition of allowed characters in parameter names between the
versions of TL2013 ({\tt ConTeXt ver: 2013.05.28 00:36 MKIV current
fmt: 2013.12.11}) and the current standalone beta ({\tt ConTeXt ver:
2014.02.14 17:07 MKIV beta fmt:2014.2.14})
The definition
\type{\def\Named[#PARAMETERNAME]{¦#PARAMETERNAME¦}} (using BROKEN
BAR, U00A6) is processed without error and gives an acceptable
result under TL2013. Under the current beta it fails.
When warnings are skipped in the current beta, the generated PDF
shows that the trailing BROKEN BAR appears to be treated as a part
of the parameter name: \Named[value].
With numbered parameters (\type{\def\Numbered[#1]{¦#1¦}}), all is
well in both versions: \Numbered[value].
This issue makes it difficult to convert macros that use delimiters
(for example, \type{\def\ABC#1×#2¦{#1\ #2}}) to Mark VI syntax, and
difficult to create such macros under Mark VI.
\subject{What is allowed \ä^?z}
What characters are acceptable in Mark VI parameter names?
What characters are acceptable in Mark IV and Mark VI macro names?
The wiki states: \quotation{Mark VI is identical to Mark IV in
every respect, except that when you define a new macro you can give
parameters names instead of numbers.} Other than that, there is no
guidance.
Experimentation shows that many more characters are allowed in
\CONTEXT{} identifiers than are generally allowed with other \TeX{}
engines. The definition providing the last part of the subject of
this section, \type{\def\ä^?z{Ä^?}}, presents no problems.
(That definition fails in Lua\TeX, \pdfTeX, and \XeTeX. I have never
used Mark II, and do not have Ruby installed to enable a test.)
-\hbox{}-~\crlf
Rik Kabel
\stoptext
___
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
___
Re: [NTG-context] (MkVI) Regression in named parameters, TL2013 to current
On 3/1/2014 12:45 AM, Rik Kabel wrote:
% macros=mkvi
\setupwhitespace[small]
\def\ä^?z{Ä^?}
only letters can make a \cs (not symbols)
-
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
___
Re: [NTG-context] (MkVI) Regression in named parameters, TL2013 to current
On 2014-02-28 20:32, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 3/1/2014 12:45 AM, Rik Kabel wrote:
% macros=mkvi
\setupwhitespace[small]
\def\ä^?z{Ä^?}
only letters can make a \cs (not symbols)
Clearly this is not currently the case, although I would agree that it
should be. Is there any way to enforce it? The definition above
processes cleanly on TL2013 and the current beta. The log file shows
nothing.
And as I wrote in the first note, accepting non-letters (that is, other
than the basic unaccented Aa--Zz) makes delimited parameter patterns
difficult to use with Mark VI parameter names. Thus, we have the
situation described in the following example, when in fact all should
work without error (as I understand it, but perhaps \starttexdefinition
has other limits of which I am not aware).
% macros=mkvi
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #1¦#2.
% #1, #2!
%\stopdefinition
% Fails to compile with TL2013 and current beta
%\starttexdefinition Test #PARAM¦#ETER.
% #PARAM, #ETER!
%\stopdefinition
% Works with TL2013 and processes with errors on current beta
%\def\Test#PARAM¦#ETER.{#PARAM, #ETER!}
% Works with TL2013 and current beta
\def\Test#1¦#2.{#1, #2!}
\starttext
\Test No soap¦{radio}.
\stoptext
Perhaps these are two different problems, but they smell the same to me.
Finally, assuming that I am correct that
\starttexdefinition Test #PARAM¦#ETER.
should work, should
\starttexdefinition Test #PARAM ¦ #ETER .
work the same. That is, are spaces allowed for readability in the
definition pattern, or are they significant?
___
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
___
