Rik Kabel <mailto:cont...@rik.users.panix.com>
31. Januar 2018 um 03:10
Listers,
I have a problem, and a question on ConTeXt programming efficiency.
In the example below, I have a set of variables. When these are
reference directly via \getvariable, everything works as expected in
simple text and in TABLEs. When I \define a macro to the \getvariable,
that works in simple text, but only the value of the last iteration
appears in the TABLE. The macro definition is saved and when it is
used, that is the value that it has.
So, how can I \define (or \def, ...) a macro to the expanded value to
avoid this? That is the problem.
The question is, Is there is any advantage to be had in doing this?
Assume that the value is referenced many (tens of) times. There seems
to be an aesthetic value of factoring out the multiple identical
instances of the \getvariable syntax and assigning a more semantically
informative name, but beyond that, is there any other value?
Natural tables collect the content of all cells to perform the width and
height calculations
and you have to expand the content of the cells to get the current value
of \getvariable.
\starttexdefinition unexpanded doTableRow #SET
\bTR
\expanded{\bTC\getvariable{#SET}{a}\eTC}
\expanded{\bTC\getvariable{#SET}{b}\eTC}
\eTR
\stoptexdefinition
BTW: You can use the \processcommacommand command when you save your
lists in a macro (no need for \expandafter).
\defineexpandable\Sets{one,two}
\processcommacommand[\Sets]\doInlineTextExp
Wolfgang
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
