"Goebel, Juergen" wrote on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:18:48 +0200:

First of all, a note to Juergen (posted openly just so 
nobody wonders why I'm not answering him any more):
I'm fed up. This is the very last message by you I'll
answer to, in any forum. You have a long history of
not providing minimal examples for the `errors' you
report, and at least for me, the limit is reached.
If you can't be bothered to try your own example and
check whether it does anything to demonstrate the 
problem, I can't be bothered to first debug your 
careless errors and then analyse your `bugreport' just
to find out what your problem may be. If your time
is too precious to give a clear statement of the problem
including a working example demonstrating the error, pay
someone to do it instead of leaving it to people who are
giving support for free.
I have every intention of giving the best support for
TeXPower (and (La)TeX in general, in the newsgroups),
and I've made a point of going into lengths to analyse
the problems at hand, but this is developing into 
a personal offense, in particular after you've promised time 
and again to provide a sensible example next time for sure.

> I would like to step through a structure like the following:
> \begin{itemize}
> \item alsdhalsdhalsd
> \item alskdalsdhlashd
> \item pros and cons
> \multicols{2}                          % multicol.sty
> \begin{itemize}{$+$}
> \item aaaaa
> \item bbbb
> \item cccc
> \item ddddd
> \end{itemize}
> \end{multicols}
> \item ahdalsdka
> \end{itemize}
> But I'm always ending with a 'missing item'. Also some experiments
> with \parstepwise and \boxedsteps (\bstep) haven't helped me yet.

Well, as your example contains several errors which are
not connected with the problem at hand (for instance, the
multicols environment is started with \multicols and ended
with \end{multicols}), and doesn't contain any \step command,
I could not reproduce the error messages you seem to be getting.

Beware of the most frequent error in connection with 
itemize, namely to say something like

 \step{\item alsdhalsdhalsd}
 \step{\item alskdalsdhlashd}
 \step{\item pros and cons}

In this case, of course there is indeed an item missing 
before the first step is activated.

The correct form is

 \item alsdhalsdhalsd
 \step{\item alskdalsdhlashd}
 \step{\item pros and cons}

Note also that you reported exactly this problem on
Aug 4, 2000, to which I answered with exactly this

Taking this into account, I didn't get any errors even
after littering your example with \step's (after correcting
your careless syntax errors).

The only remaining problem is that inside the multicols
environment, the column break is calculated based on the
number of lines, so the standard implementation of \step
will lead to items `wandering' between columns. boxedsteps
is unfortunate also because \item can't go in the argument
of \bstep.
My suggestion is to use \vstep like this:

    \item alsdhalsdhalsd
    \step{\item alskdalsdhlashd}
    \step{\item pros and cons
      \begin{multicols}{2}                          % multicol.sty
          \item aaaaa
          \vstep\item bbbb
          \vstep\item cccc
          \vstep\item ddddd
    \step{\item ahdalsdka}

Of course, this implies the use of color.sty and doesn't
work with structured backgrounds.

Using \bstep is possible in principle but involves a slight
modification of itemize to account for item marks.

> A test with a two-column-tabular leads to a nearly(!) perfect result.
> But after the first entry the tabular steps one millimetre or so upwards.

Using \parstepwise should cure this.


  Stephan Lehmke                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Fachbereich Informatik, LS I   Tel. +49 231 755 6434 
  Universitaet Dortmund          FAX              6555
  D-44221 Dortmund, Germany             

Reply via email to