On 2/23/07, Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> Hi Hans, Taco and Mojca,
>
> There is a bit of inconsistency between the two subformula numbering
> methods (\startsubformulas that I wrote, and \NR[+][a] of
> \startalign). While writing a paper I realized that both of them are
> needed. For example
>
> \startsubformulas[eq:encoder] \placeformula
> \startformula \startalign
> \NC Z_1 \EQ c_1 (X_1), \NR[eq:encoder 1]
> \intertext{and for $t=2,\dots,T$,}
> \NC Z_t \EQ c_t (X_1, \dots, X_t, \tilde Y_1, \dots, \tilde Y_{t-1}).
> \NR[eq:encoder t]
> \stopalign \stopformula
> \stopsubformulas
>
> and
>
> \placeformula
> \startformula \startalign
> \NC \hat X_t \EQ g_1(Y_1) \NR[eq:decoder][a]
> \NC M_1 \EQ l_1(Y_1) \NR[eq:memory][a]
> \intertext{and for $t=2,\dots,T$,}
> \decrementnumber[formula] \decrementnumber[formula]
> \NC \hat X_t \EQ g_t(Y_t, M_{t-1}) \NR[+][b]
> \NC M_t \EQ l_t(Y_t, M_{t-1}) \NR[+][b]
> \stopalign \stopformula
>
>
> However, the startsubformulas uses \@@fnseparator as separator while
> \NR[+][a] uses no separator. It is relatively straight forward to make
> \NR honor the separator, in \dododoformulanumber change
>
> \edef\hetnumber{#2} to \edef\hetnumber{\@@fnseparator#2}
>
> and
>
> \edef\hetnumber{#4} to \edef\hetnumber{\@@fnseparator#4}
>
> To maintain backward compatibility we can change
>
> \setupsubformulas[separator=\@@fmseparator]
>
> to
>
> \setupsubformulas[separator=]
>
>
> Any comments? I think that Mojca and I are the only people who use
> \startsubformulas right now (my fault, have not documented them), so
> breaking the backward compatibility of \startsubformulas should not be
> too big a problem.
I really don't care about that dot in my own documents. I also think
that the feature is fresh enough that it can still be changed. If you
ask me: do it in the most consistent possible way.
Mojca
_______________________________________________
dev-context mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/dev-context
