On 4/15/2013 4:21 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 15.04.2013 um 16:12 schrieb Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl:
On 4/15/2013 4:07 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
I don't think named parameters are possible with \define, but maybe
I'm mistaken.
just use suffix .mkvi or put % macros=mkvi at the top of your
On 2013–04–16 Hans Hagen wrote:
Marco tries to do something like
\define[3]\Test{#one#two#three}
which doesn’t work.
hm, ok, do \define is not mkvi then ... too messy to catch that one too
No need to bother with that. I was just pointing out the differences
between \def and \define
On 04/16/2013 11:05 AM, Marco Patzer wrote:
It doesn't make sense to use named parameters with
\define, since you explicitly pass the parameter*number* in
brackets. You cannot refer to a number by name. Well, you could
theoretically, but I'd strongly object.
Just out of curiosity: why would
On 2013–04–16 Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I'm not lobbying for define to have something similar, I just want
to point out that it would be in the spirit of convergence between
ConTeXt and Lua. It certainly isn't an urgent need, but having
\define[one,two,three]
wouldn't be absurd, now would
On 4/16/2013 11:10 AM, Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
On 04/16/2013 11:05 AM, Marco Patzer wrote:
It doesn't make sense to use named parameters with
\define, since you explicitly pass the parameter*number* in
brackets. You cannot refer to a number by name. Well, you could
theoretically, but I'd
Since the question has been raised about understanding \define, etc.
indeed some use remains a bit unclear (to me).
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:34:48 +0200
Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl wrote:
there is a commented blob that implements thinsg like this
\starttext
\define[2]\whatevera{#1+#2}
On 4/16/2013 1:14 PM, Alan BRASLAU wrote:
Since the question has been raised about understanding \define, etc.
indeed some use remains a bit unclear (to me).
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:34:48 +0200
Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl wrote:
there is a commented blob that implements thinsg like this
On 4/16/2013 12:11 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
On 2013–04–16 Thomas A. Schmitz wrote:
I'm not lobbying for define to have something similar, I just want
to point out that it would be in the spirit of convergence between
ConTeXt and Lua. It certainly isn't an urgent need, but having
Am 15.04.2013 um 15:47 schrieb Tim Li timli2...@outlook.com:
In plain TeX, we always use \def for creating a new macro, but in ConTeXt,
sometimes it won't work, especially when making own chapter titles. The \def
can produce the error message like this : Argument of \... has an extra }.
On 2013–04–15 Tim Li wrote:
What's the difference between \def and \define?
\define is basically the same as \unexpanded\def. It uses a slightly
different syntax for specifying optional arguments:
\define[3]\foo{First: #1, Second: #2, Third: #3}
\unexpanded\def\foo#1#2#3{First: #1, Second:
On 4/15/2013 4:07 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
I don't think named parameters are possible with \define, but maybe
I'm mistaken.
just use suffix .mkvi or put % macros=mkvi at the top of your file
-
Am 15.04.2013 um 16:12 schrieb Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl:
On 4/15/2013 4:07 PM, Marco Patzer wrote:
I don't think named parameters are possible with \define, but maybe
I'm mistaken.
just use suffix .mkvi or put % macros=mkvi at the top of your file
Marco tries to do something like
On 2013–04–15 Hans Hagen wrote:
I don't think named parameters are possible with \define, but maybe
I'm mistaken.
just use suffix .mkvi or put % macros=mkvi at the top of your file
That's how to enable named parameters for \def. I was talking about
\define. The arguments are provided as a
13 matches
Mail list logo