On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 00:20:37 +0100 "Hans Hagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I use pre-existent core and add-on modules to get the ideas for > >mine. Much of my knowledge of ConTeXt internal comes from studying > >the sources (of course, if Hans used English instead of Dutch, it > >would ease my work a lot ;-> but he's working along this path). Same for me. Just reading the source is a good idea, and using something like 'grep' or 'ctags' helps a lot. > also, you can use the *documented* low level macros in syst-*.tex and > supp-*.tex ... and the predefined key/value names in mult-con.tex/mult-com.tex > also, the modules should have t-* names, no m-* or else or else what? ;) This functionality is already in ConTeXt, Hans? > now, with respect to comp.tex.whatever, i purposely am not on that list (i > don't want the overhead, don't want to be dragged into too many > discussions, etc). I leave it upto other members of the context list to > support those lists. Same for me. I already have too much to read as it is. However, I could set up a public forum for ConTeXt support if there are people interested. It would solve some problems with separation of beginners/experts/programmers. OTOH, it would be HTTP based and therefore less accessible than a mailing list. What do you guys think? > >Another thing developers would need is a module interface to > >TeXUtil: when a ConTeXt module requires some particular > >postprocessing, it should provide a Perl module to be loaded by > >TeXUtil. > > > it maybe that texexec will control all of this Not sure about that, extensions usually don't need texexec but texutil. Usually, you want to put some extra info in the tui file. It makes more sense to do this from texutil directly. -- groeten, Taco
