Obviously someone has taken pity on me:
https://wiki.contextgarden.net/Command/setupmathalignment
A thousand thanks to the silent hero.
Regards,
Wolfgang
___
If your question is of interest to others as well, please
Hi,
indeed, one can be surprised. The good thing is that you will now
update the wiki, right? :)
/Mikael
PS I think the "official announcement" was made on the list, but I do
not remember the exact date.
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 12:23 PM wolfgangbackes--- via ntg-context
wrote:
>
> By the way,
By the way, if it's been a few years since the changeover, isn't it surprising
that the examples on the contextgarden website still use the old syntax?
Are you aware of an official announcement of the new syntax? After all, this
seems to mean that old texts are no longer rendered correctly, at
No, it seems to have been my mistake. I must apologize. I have tested the
syntax with the preceding column numbers again, and lo and behold: it works.
Unfortunately, I can no longer understand what went wrong with my first test of
the new syntax. In any case, thank you very much for your
I get the attached (with the standalone, as well as with the version
from texlive 2023). Maybe I misunderstood you.
/Mikael
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:16 PM wolfgangbackes--- via ntg-context
wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for the quick reply. But I had already tried this syntax
> before,
Thank you very much for the quick reply. But I had already tried this syntax
before, because I had found it somewhere by chance. But it didn't work either,
as you can also verify on the page https://context-on-web.eu/.
Regards,
Wolfgang
gt; According to my recent tests, a mathalignment environment does not seem to
> react (any more) to the values of the "align" option.
> The source code hab been rendered correctly a few years ago,
>
> Minimal example 1:
>
> \starttext
> \startformula
> \startmathal
Something as elementary as "mathenvironment" can't really be faulty, can it?
According to my recent tests, a mathalignment environment does not seem to
react (any more) to the values of the "align" option.
The source code hab been rendered correctly a few years ago
> Hi,
>> >
>> > [I am on version 2022.05.11 11:36]
>> >
>> > I think either a bug might have crept into one of the recent uploads or
>> > there is some change in behaviour – numbering of statements inside
>> > mathalignment blocks
re is some change in behaviour – numbering of statements inside
>
> > mathalignment blocks is not working: only one statement is numbered even
> if
> > multiple are requested.
> >
> > The following example does not produce the expected result
> > both the
On 5/19/22 2:04 PM śrīrāma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [I am on version 2022.05.11 11:36]
>
> I think either a bug might have crept into one of the recent uploads or
> there is some change in behaviour – numbering of statements inside
> mathalignment blocks is not workin
ight have crept into one of the recent uploads or
> there
> is some change in behaviour – numbering of statements inside mathalignment
> blocks is not working: only one statement is numbered even if multiple are
> requested.
>
> The following example does not produce the expected r
Hi,
[I am on version 2022.05.11 11:36]
I think either a bug might have crept into one of the recent uploads or there
is some change in behaviour – numbering of statements inside mathalignment
blocks is not working: only one statement is numbered even if multiple are
requested.
The following
On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 1:15 PM Mikael Sundqvist via ntg-context wrote:
> \starttext
> \placeformula
> \startformula
> \startmathalignment[n=7,align={1:right,2:left,3:right,4:left,5:right,6:left,7:righ
> t}] \NC x_1 \NC + \NC x_2 \NC + \NC 6x_3 \NC = \NC 170, \NR
> \NC 3x_1 \NC - \NC 110x_2
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 2:33 AM śrīrāma via ntg-context
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While setting some rather large set of equations in a document I could not
> achieve proper alignment of columns in mathalignment. Below is a demonstrative
> example:
>
> \starttext
> \p
Hi,
While setting some rather large set of equations in a document I could not
achieve proper alignment of columns in mathalignment. Below is a demonstrative
example:
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
\startmathalignment[n=7,align={right,left,right,left,right,left,right}]
\NC x_1 \NC
> On 30 Nov 2021, at 19:34, Alexandre Christe via ntg-context
> wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
>
>
> What I've done is to play with mathalignment and \framed. Here is a MWE:
>
> \starttext
> \defineoverlay[midrule][{\blackrule[height=.02cm,width=5.5cm]}]
>
&g
Dear list,
[image: image.png]
What I've done is to play with mathalignment and \framed. Here is a MWE:
\starttext
\defineoverlay[midrule][{\blackrule[height=.02cm,width=5.5cm]}]
\framed[frame=off,background=midrule,boffset=.65cm]{\startformula
\startmathalignment[n=12,align={middle,middle
Hi,
When a mathalignment is started at the end of a multi-column page ConTeXt
places it at the start of the previous second column instead of placing it on a
new page. Here's my code to test:
\starttext \startcolumns[n=4]
\startluacode
lorum = "Lorum ipsum dolor sit amet. "
for i
You obviously didn't read my first mailing correctly and copied an incomplete
version of my MWE. The
definitions of \Up and \Dn are right there before \starttext. Whether the
mathmatrix is empty of
not does not make a difference. For the sake of completeness I present you a
different MWE
Hi Henri,
I think your code has a problem: the first one is that the definition of \Up
and \Down is not understood when I compile your example, and then you introduce
an empty mathmatrix which creates a difficulty too.
Once I remove the definitions of \Up and \Dn the code is typeset (ConTeXt
Dear devs,
In the latest beta the interaction between mathalignment and mathmatrix is
broken. The biggest
problem is that documents containing this pattern do not typeset anymore at
all! (That makes 100
errors; please try again.) Please fix.
Cheers, Henri
---
\define\Up{\mathord\Uparrow
On 7/3/2017 8:37 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
Dear Hans,
In a previous email I complained that with mathalignment large formulas crash
into the paragraph
below when using grid typesetting. This has been fixed in the latest beta but
now the space above
and below is asymmetric. For this particular
Dear Hans,
In a previous email I complained that with mathalignment large formulas crash
into the paragraph
below when using grid typesetting. This has been fixed in the latest beta but
now the space above
and below is asymmetric. For this particular case I could fix it by setting
the gird
On 6/6/2017 1:06 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
It seems that \NC in mathalignment is looking ahead for the next \NR, because
when I wrap the matrix
in an explicit brace group it works fine again:
\definemathmatrix
[pmatrix]
[left=\left(,right=\right)]
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
On 6/6/2017 1:06 AM, Henri Menke wrote:
It seems that \NC in mathalignment is looking ahead for the next \NR, because
when I wrap the matrix
in an explicit brace group it works fine again:
\definemathmatrix
[pmatrix]
[left=\left(,right=\right)]
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
Wow, mathalignment is completely screwed in beta and TL2017. Hans, please fix!
---
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
\startmathalignment[m=2]
\NC a^2 + b^2 \NC= c^2 \NC a^2 + b^2 \NC= c^2 \NR
\stopmathalignment
\stopformula
\stoptext
On Tue, 2017-06-06 at 11:06 +1200, Henri
It seems that \NC in mathalignment is looking ahead for the next \NR, because
when I wrap the matrix
in an explicit brace group it works fine again:
\definemathmatrix
[pmatrix]
[left=\left(,right=\right)]
\starttext
\placeformula
\startformula
\startmathalignment
\NC \sigma_x \NC
Dear list,
When I have a mathmatrix inside a mathalignment the numbering using \NR[+] does
not work anymore.
Instead it prints "[+]" on the next line. I guess the definition of \NR from
mathmatrix leaks
outside. Affects both TL2017 and latest beta. MWE is below.
Che
wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> when I typeset multi line equations using mathalignment and grid the
> descenders of the last line of equation run into the first line of text after
> that equation. The problem is particularly bad with the Lucida fonts (I
> think the large operat
Dear list,
when I typeset multi line equations using mathalignment and grid the descenders
of the last line of equation run into the first line of text after that
equation. The problem is particularly bad with the Lucida fonts (I think the
large operators are relatively larger than for Latin
Hello list,
is there a way to modify the space between equations in mathalignment?
Something like \TB in tabulate would be great.
In tabulate, \TB[-3mm] i.e. lets you shrink the vertical space between two rows.
Aditya spoke about that here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ntg-context%40ntg.nl
Hi Aditya
see attached file ... when we upgrade the alignment code we need to look
into this as well (wraping in startformula works ok but has too much
spacing, but we can handle that)
Hans
-
\NC +\NC 3z\NC =\NC -4\NR
\NC x\NC +\NC 4y\NC +\NC 5z\NC =\NC -5\NR
\NC 2x\NC +\NC 4y\NC +\NC 3z\NC =\NC -5\NR
\stopmathalignment
\NC\AR
\stoptable
But this doesn't work. There seems to be a problem with the mathalignment
environment within the table. What do I need enclose these in so
,middle,right,middle,right}]
\NC x\NC +\NC 3y\NC +\NC 3z\NC =\NC -4\NR
\NC x\NC +\NC 4y\NC +\NC 5z\NC =\NC -5\NR
\NC 2x\NC +\NC 4y\NC +\NC 3z\NC =\NC -5\NR
\stopmathalignment
\NC\AR
\stoptable
But this doesn't work. There seems to be a problem with the mathalignment
environment within the table
\stoptable
But this doesn't work. There seems to be a problem with the mathalignment
environment within the table. What do I need enclose these in so that
they
will be treated as displayed equations within the table environment?
(Untested): \framed[align=normal,width=fit]{\startformula
On Sat, 14 May 2011, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
Thanks, the framed bit is fine, except that the base of the frame is aligned
with the exercise number (a), whereas I'd like the top line of the
equations aligned with the (a)...
Play around with:
\framed[location=high|top|low|bottom|lohi|middle]
37 matches
Mail list logo
