Re: [NTG-context] How to define section with midaligned number and midaligned text?

ext width -->| " I. Section Bla bla ... " I tried this: \define[2]\Sec{\midaligned{#1.}\midaligned{#2}} \setuphead[section][command=\Sec,conversion=R] \starttext \section{Section} \stoptext but it seems that text "Section" is

Re: [NTG-context] How to define section with midaligned number and midaligned text?

Lukáš Procházka <mailto:l...@pontex.cz> 9. August 2016 um 22:43 Hello, I need to produce a \section with midaligned number and midaligned text bellow the number, like: |<- text width -->| " I. Section Bla bla ... " I tried

[NTG-context] How to define section with midaligned number and midaligned text?

Hello, I need to produce a \section with midaligned number and midaligned text bellow the number, like: |<- text width -->| " I. Section Bla bla ... " I tried this: \define[2]\Sec{\midaligned{#1.}\midaligned{#2}} \s

Re: [NTG-context] Define font based on language

Michal Ondrejáš 4. April 2016 um 15:17 Hello I need some help regarding font definitions. The situation is like this: \definefont [issuefont] [SansRegular at 14pt] {\issuefont \labeltext{issue} \crlf \documentvariable{issue}} I need to get chinese text i

Re: [NTG-context] Define font based on language

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Michal Ondrejáš wrote: > Hello > > I need some help regarding font definitions. > > Sorry for delay, we were busy with the texlive deadline. -- luigi ___ If your question is of inter

[NTG-context] Define font based on language

Hello I need some help regarding font definitions. The situation is like this: \definefont [issuefont] [SansRegular at 14pt] {\issuefont \labeltext{issue} \crlf \documentvariable{issue}} I need to get chinese text into the issue variable, but for that I need to change the font. I need so

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On 2/15/2016 10:29 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Hans Hagen wrote: On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the | \defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? i uploaded a beta where you can test: test {\red\und

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On 2/15/2016 10:31 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote: On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Hans Hagen wrote: On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the | \defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? i uploaded a beta where you can test: test {\red\unde

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Hans Hagen wrote: On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the | \defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? i uploaded a beta where you can test: test {\red\underrandoms{test me}} and \underrandom{test} or

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Hans Hagen wrote: On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the | \defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? i uploaded a beta where you can test: test {\red\underrandoms{test me}} and \underrandom{test} or

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On 2/15/2016 9:31 PM, Otared Kavian wrote: Hi Hans, Thanks for this new nice feature! However it seems to me that \underdashes produces dots under ords, while \underdots produces dashes… Is it on purpose? no, will be fixed in next beta Also the name \underrandoms seems misleading too. i n

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

Hi Hans, Thanks for this new nice feature! However it seems to me that \underdashes produces dots under ords, while \underdots produces dashes… Is it on purpose? Also the name \underrandoms seems misleading too. Best regards: OK > On 15 Feb 2016, at 10:39, Hans Hagen wrote: > > On 2/10/201

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the |\defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? i uploaded a beta where you can test: test {\red\underrandoms{test me}} and \underrandom{test} or \underrandom{grep} \blank test {\red\under

Re: [NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

On 2/10/2016 10:14 PM, Laurent d'Airsy wrote: I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the |\defineunderbar|mechanism. Is that possible? not yet (but one can use inline text backgrounds to achieve this) i'm playing with some extensions to the underbar code but it might take a

[NTG-context] How can I define a dotted underbar in ConTeXt?

I would like to create a dotted underbar in ConTeXt with the \defineunderbarmechanism. Is that possible? ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@n

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

On 7/13/2015 3:04 PM, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: Thanks Hans. At this moment, it works fine. For me it is quite essential novelty and it is very much handy for me. It seems that works only in the standalone version because version in TeXlive 2014 version it tells an error message (but does not matte

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Thanks Hans. At this moment, it works fine. For me it is quite essential novelty and it is very much handy for me. It seems that works only in the standalone version because version in TeXlive 2014 version it tells an error message (but does not matter on it). I want to even ask how you can wri

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Thanks Hans. At this moment, it works fine. For me it is quite essential novelty and it is very much handy for me. It seems that works only in the standalone version because version in TeXlive 2014 version it tells an error message (but does not matter on it). I want to even ask how you can wri

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

On 7/9/2015 5:05 PM, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: Thanx to Hans and Taco too, ad Taco) ala Perhaps interfaces.definecommand could be extended with a way to do global definitions? Indeed it seems to me. Changes in lua code does not affect the results in ConTeXt. ad Hans) interfaces.setmacro("name","v

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

me..'[#1]'..[[{Neco: #1}]]) } \def\simpleA {content when parameter is missing} \def\complexA[#1]{parameter #1} why don't you define these commands at the tex level Hans - Hans

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

..[[{Neco: #1}]]) } \def\simpleA {content when parameter is missing} \def\complexA[#1]{parameter #1} why don't you define these commands at the tex level Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Hi, > On 09 Jul 2015, at 07:22, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: > > The problem is that the macros created in Lua I sometimes do not work as well > when I create TeX (during the cycle will automatically fall short values). I > have a particularly bad experience in this regard with the construction, he

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

27; content='content when parameter is missing' context([[\definecomplexorsimple\]]..xlsname) %context([[\def\simple]]..xlsname..[[{]]..content..[[}]]) %context([[\def\complex]]..xlsname..'[#1]'..[[{Neco: #1}]]) } \def\simpleA {content when parameter is missing} \def\complexA[

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

}]]) %context([[\def\complex]]..xlsname..'[#1]'..[[{Neco: #1}]]) } \def\simpleA {content when parameter is missing} \def\complexA[#1]{parameter #1} why don't you define these commands at the tex level Hans -

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Thanks Taco very much. At this point, it really works in simple situations, but in the event that this solution will incorporate into the existing system, then I have big problems with expansion (values are not updated in macros). I need more solutions using something like context.setgvalue, o

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

> On 08 Jul 2015, at 13:58, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: > > Thanx Taco for reply. > > the minimal example see bellow not crashed, but \A macro is not created. > I don't Know in what could still be a problem. Example I am even more > minimalize It works for me after changing \directlua {} to \star

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Thanx Taco for reply. the minimal example see bellow not crashed, but \A macro is not created. I don't Know in what could still be a problem. Example I am even more minimalize Thanx Jaroslav \starttext \directlua{ xlsname='A' interfaces.definecommand ('do'..xlsname, { arguments = { {

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

> On 08 Jul 2015, at 13:04, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: > > Hi Taco. > full deployment is unfortunately not working. > > Unfortunately I need to cycle create different macros whose names are > variable. At this moment I can not deal with this: > > --- context.doxlsname() --- ? context[

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Hi Taco. full deployment is unfortunately not working. Unfortunately I need to cycle create different macros whose names are variable. At this moment I can not deal with this: --- context.doxlsname() --- ? Thanx Jaroslav Hajtmar here is another minimal example: \starttext \d

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

jtmar wrote: Hello ConTeXist. Within the one very complex problem I need to solve the following case. I want using lua code to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets. Simplest solution I know is this: \startluacode interfaces.definecommand ('dolastname', { argument

Re: [NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

> On 08 Jul 2015, at 11:05, Jaroslav Hajtmar wrote: > > Hello ConTeXist. > > Within the one very complex problem I need to solve the following case. I > want using lua code to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets. Simplest solution I know is th

[NTG-context] Using lua to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets

Hello ConTeXist. Within the one very complex problem I need to solve the following case. I want using lua code to define a macro with one optional parameter in brackets. I tried it using commands context.setgvalue, or find something on the wiki (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/System_Macros

Re: [NTG-context] How to define a new environment / function?

Dr. Thomas Möbius 17. Juni 2015 15:23 Dear list, having used ConTeXt for years now, I am the first time in need to, well, "programming" something. And I realised, I am a little bit lost. I have a rather long list of variable descriptions that I would like to ty

[NTG-context] How to define a new environment / function?

Dear list, having used ConTeXt for years now, I am the first time in need to, well, "programming" something. And I realised, I am a little bit lost. I have a rather long list of variable descriptions that I would like to typeset in a usable and readable way. It should look something like this: -

Re: [NTG-context] define macros only visible in a definestartstop-block that have arguments?

12:05 PM, Norbert Melzer wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> I have trouble to define macros which are only visible inside a block >> defined using `\definestartstop`: >> >> ```tex >> \setuppapersize[A6] >> \definestartstop[Foo][before={Foo}] >> \def

Re: [NTG-context] define macros only visible in a definestartstop-block that have arguments?

On 3/20/2015 12:05 PM, Norbert Melzer wrote: Hi! I have trouble to define macros which are only visible inside a block defined using `\definestartstop`: ```tex \setuppapersize[A6] \definestartstop[Foo][before={Foo}] \definestartstop[Bar][before={\bgroup\define\Foo{Foo}},after={\egroup

[NTG-context] define macros only visible in a definestartstop-block that have arguments?

Hi! I have trouble to define macros which are only visible inside a block defined using `\definestartstop`: ```tex \setuppapersize[A6] \definestartstop[Foo][before={Foo}] \definestartstop[Bar][before={\bgroup\define\Foo{Foo}},after={\egroup}] %\definestartstop[Baz][before={\bgroup\define[1]\Foo

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hi Hans, It works perfectly, thank you. Fabrice ___ 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 w

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

On 1/18/2015 10:01 PM, Fabrice wrote: Hi Hans, The size of the float does not center the frame unless I replace by \dorecurse{5}{\filler[dots]} by \dorecurse{10}{\filler[dots]}. Is there a better way ? Thanks, Fabrice % macros=mkvi \definefiller[dots][left=\dontleavehmode,right=\hskip\zeropoin

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hi Hans, The size of the float does not center the frame unless I replace by \dorecurse{5}{\filler[dots]} by \dorecurse{10}{\filler[dots]}. Is there a better way ? Thanks, Fabrice % macros=mkvi \definefiller[dots][left=\dontleavehmode,right=\hskip\zeropoint\par] \definefloat [recipe] [

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hi Alan, What should I include ? Fabrice Envoyé de mon iPad ___ 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/n

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

I am impressed ! Best regards, Fabriçe Envoyé de mon iPad ___ 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

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

On the subject of recipes, Fabrice clearly should have come to the 8th ConTeXt Meeting that took place on September 8-13, 2014 at Bassange, Belgium... ;-) Alan On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 22:49:39 +0100 Hans Hagen wrote: > On 1/5/2015 6:58 PM, Fabrice wrote: > > Hi, > > How to make the dotted lines "s

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

On 1/5/2015 6:58 PM, Fabrice wrote: Hi, How to make the dotted lines "stop" at the edge of the frame? \definefiller[dots][left=\dontleavehmode,right=\hskip\zeropoint] \definecolor[H1prime][c=0.50, m=0.00, y=1.00, k=0.00] \definecolor[H4][c=0.07, m=0.00, y=0.15, k=0.00] \starttext \startitemize[

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hi, How to make the dotted lines "stop" at the edge of the frame? \definefiller[dots][left=\dontleavehmode,right=\hskip\zeropoint] \definecolor[H1prime][c=0.50, m=0.00, y=1.00, k=0.00] \definecolor[H4][c=0.07, m=0.00, y=0.15, k=0.00] \starttext \startitemize[n][stopper={.},style=bold] \placefigu

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

Hi Hans, Thank you for your answer, text placement is correct as long as the policy is not too great. For cons, I'll remove the red line separation because its placement is random. Best regards, Fabrice ___ If your

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

On 12/28/2014 1:00 PM, Fabrice wrote: align={right}, align={flushright,lohi} - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands te

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

currentpicture to p ; draw p withcolor \MPcolor{\overlaylinecolor} ; \stopuniqueMPgraphic \defineoverlay[funny][\uniqueMPgraphic{funny}] \define[2]\MySectionCommand {\framed [background=funny, frame=off, width=fit, align={right}, framecolor

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

Thank you to Akira and Hans for these solutions. How do now to the numbering and the title text are equidistant from the red line separation ? Fabrice ___ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

\MPcolor{\overlaylinecolor} ; \stopuniqueMPgraphic \defineoverlay[funny][\uniqueMPgraphic{funny}] \define[2]\MySectionCommand {\framed [background=funny, frame=off, width=0.5\textwidth, align={right}, framecolor=mycolor

[NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

} ; \stopuniqueMPgraphic \defineoverlay[funny][\uniqueMPgraphic{funny}] \define[2]\MySectionCommand {\framed [background=funny, frame=off, width=0.5\textwidth, align={right}, framecolor=mycolor, rulethickness=1.5pt, backgroundcolor=white

[NTG-context] Define a new type section with metafun

withcolor \MPcolor{\overlaycolor} ; draw p withcolor \MPcolor{\overlaylinecolor} ; draw (20,0)--(20,h) withcolor red ; \stopuniqueMPgraphic \defineoverlay[funny][\uniqueMPgraphic{funny}] \define[2]\MySectionCommand {\framed [background=funny, frame=off, width=0.5

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Perfect ! thank you, Fabrice ___ 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://ww

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Am 20.05.2014 um 19:50 schrieb Fabrice : > Hello, > @ Luigi @Wolfgang Thanks for your suggestions. > > Since I want to continue my learning ConTeXt, I will use the command > \filler[dots]. > Can we do the same thing if there is no text in the beginning ? You can add “left=\dontleavehmode” to t

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hello, @ Luigi @Wolfgang Thanks for your suggestions. Since I want to continue my learning ConTeXt, I will use the command \filler[dots]. Can we do the same thing if there is no text in the beginning ? Fabrice ___ I

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Am 20.05.2014 um 10:47 schrieb luigi scarso : > > > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Fabrice Couvreur > wrote: > Hi, > Is it possible to redefine the command \periods[n] to have a line that goes > from the end of the word to the edge of the page without having to play on > the number n

Re: [NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Fabrice Couvreur < fabrice1.couvr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > Is it possible to redefine the command \periods[n] to have a line that > goes from the end of the word to the edge of the page without having to > play on the number n ? > Regards, > Fabrice > > \start

[NTG-context] Define a new command from the command \periods[n]

Hi, Is it possible to redefine the command \periods[n] to have a line that goes from the end of the word to the edge of the page without having to play on the number n ? Regards, Fabrice \starttext \startitemize[a][stopper=),style=bold] \item $x\mapsto -x^2+x+1$ : \periods[66] \item $x\mapsto 2x^3

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Am 11.12.2013 um 13:31 schrieb Pavel Stupin : > Thank you everyone for your help! Quite excited about having so much > for me to learn. This mailing list is immensely helpful indeed. So, > both solutions worked for me, but I've decided to stick to the one > that uses comma separated list having a

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Thank you everyone for your help! Quite excited about having so much for me to learn. This mailing list is immensely helpful indeed. So, both solutions worked for me, but I've decided to stick to the one that uses comma separated list having adapted to my needs the code kindly offered by Wolfgang (

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

On Tue, Dec 10 2013, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: > One way to set values is the \getparameters command but the disadvantage > of this is that you to ensure not to call values (e.g. \testthree) which > aren’t set > (e.g. not “three={…}” setting for the \test command). You can preset the values: \get

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Am 10.12.2013 um 17:54 schrieb Alan Braslau : > Perhaps you might want to do something processing a comma separated > list: > > http://wiki.contextgarden.net/System_Macros/Comma_Separated_Lists A short example can help to show how it can be used: \def\test {\dosingleargument\dotest} \def\d

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

table > >> works indeed, however, when I increase the number of arguments up > >> to 10 --- to use the simplest example possible, without any tables: > >> \define[10]\myText{#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10} --- it doesn't > >> work again (works fine with

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Am 10.12.2013 um 15:24 schrieb Pavel Stupin : > Thank you, Wolfgang! Much to my delight, \startembeddedxtable works > indeed, however, when I increase the number of arguments up to 10 > --- to use the simplest example possible, without any tables: > \define[10]\myText{#1 #2 #3 #4 #5

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

\startembeddedxtable works >> indeed, however, when I increase the number of arguments up to 10 >> --- to use the simplest example possible, without any tables: >> \define[10]\myText{#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10} --- it doesn't work >> again (works fine with 9 argumen

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

edxtable works > indeed, however, when I increase the number of arguments up to 10 > --- to use the simplest example possible, without any tables: > \define[10]\myText{#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10} --- it doesn't work > again (works fine with 9 arguments). Am I correct assuming t

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Thank you, Wolfgang! Much to my delight, \startembeddedxtable works indeed, however, when I increase the number of arguments up to 10 --- to use the simplest example possible, without any tables: \define[10]\myText{#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10} --- it doesn't work again (works fine w

Re: [NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Am 10.12.2013 um 12:23 schrieb Pavel Stupin : > Hello: > > I'm struggling with understanding the way \define is supposed to work. > I would like to have a macros to generate tables and populate them > with some specific data submitted as arguments. I apologize for my > l

[NTG-context] Understanding the basics of \define

Hello: I'm struggling with understanding the way \define is supposed to work. I would like to have a macros to generate tables and populate them with some specific data submitted as arguments. I apologize for my lack of understanding of the very basics, but e.g. the following code just do

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

On 8/21/2013 8:27 PM, Thangalin wrote: For context, here is the question on TeX.SE: http://tex..stackexchange.com/questions/129297/define-colour-transparency-in-relation-to-existing-colour <http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/129297/define-colour-transparency-in-relation-to-existing-col

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

For context, here is the question on TeX.SE: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/129297/define-colour-transparency-in-relation-to-existing-colour I agree with Marco: Are you sure it's a good idea to add another colour definition > mechanism? Then we have > \definecolor \define

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

On 2013-08-21, at 11:18 AM, Hans Hagen wrote: > On 8/21/2013 4:23 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote: > >> Its time for a `simplecolor` module and a `\definesimplecolor` command :) > > Well, I suppose most users use just \definecolor as spot colors are something > one only will use in special cases, i

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

On 8/21/2013 4:23 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote: Its time for a `simplecolor` module and a `\definesimplecolor` command :) Well, I suppose most users use just \definecolor as spot colors are something one only will use in special cases, in which the color setup only uses spot colors then. Also, i

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

ith using a key-value setting? Probably a little late to discuss this, but I also don't see why \definespotcolor got its own command. A simpler approach: If two arguments to \definecolor are provided you define a colour, if three arguments are provided you define a tint of a colour. Its tim

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

little late to discuss this, but I also don't see why \definespotcolor got its own command. A simpler approach: If two arguments to \definecolor are provided you define a colour, if three arguments are provided you define a tint of a colour. well, more checking etc .. also some historic re

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

between \definespotcolor and \defineprocesscolor is the colour space check, can't that be dealt with using a key-value setting? Probably a little late to discuss this, but I also don't see why \definespotcolor got its own command. A simpler approach: If two arguments to \definecolor are provi

Re: [NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

On 8/21/2013 2:25 AM, Thangalin wrote: Hi, What would it take to extend \definecolor so that: \definecolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] defines a new colour (ColourB) based on an existing colour (ColourA)? I know that \definespotcolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] works, but it seems like

[NTG-context] Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

Hi, What would it take to extend \definecolor so that: \definecolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] defines a new colour (ColourB) based on an existing colour (ColourA)? I know that \definespotcolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] works, but it seems like \definecolor would also be a natural fit.

Re: [NTG-context] [***SPAM***] Error "can't define.."

Am 12.06.2013 um 17:21 schrieb d.henman : > > > I encountered this error, when changing over to a Japanese language document. > > "fonts > defining > unable to define latinmodernmath-regular.otf as > [simplefonts:1-8pt-mm-mb--1]

[NTG-context] [***SPAM***] Error "can't define.."

I encountered this error, when changing over to a Japanese language document. "fonts > defining > unable to define latinmodernmath-regular.otf as [simplefonts:1-8pt-mm-mb--1] --- fonts > math: unset for global bodyfont simplef

[NTG-context] [***SPAM***] Error "can't define.."

I encountered this error, when changing over to a Japanese language document. "fonts > defining > unable to define latinmodernmath-regular.otf as [simplefonts:1-8pt-mm-mb--1] --- fonts > math: unset for global bodyfont simplef

Re: [NTG-context] \define with more than 9 parameters??

Am 06.06.2013 um 09:56 schrieb Jaroslav Hajtmar : > Hello ConTeXist. > Is there in ConTeXt any dirty trick, which can put more than 9 parameters > into macro? > > I mean for example \define[25]\macrowithtwentyfiveparams{ } There are a few tricks when you need more then

[NTG-context] \define with more than 9 parameters??

Hello ConTeXist. Is there in ConTeXt any dirty trick, which can put more than 9 parameters into macro? I mean for example \define[25]\macrowithtwentyfiveparams{ } I use rarely any trick from Peter Olsak (see below) and I'd like something like that used in ConTeXt. Thanx Jar

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 \

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 wrote: there is a commented blob that implements thinsg like this \starttext

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 wrote: > there is a commented blob that implements thinsg like this > > \starttext > \define[2]\wha

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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, bu

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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

Re: [NTG-context] the difference 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:

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 point

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

On 4/15/2013 4:21 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: Am 15.04.2013 um 16:12 schrieb Hans Hagen : 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

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 w

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

Am 15.04.2013 um 16:12 schrieb Hans Hagen : > 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

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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

Re: [NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

Am 15.04.2013 um 15:47 schrieb Tim Li : > 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 extr

[NTG-context] the difference between \def and \define

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 }". \define in ConTeXt can solve this problem. What&#

Re: [NTG-context] \define a command with square-bracket arguments

On 28-9-2012 14:41, Sietse Brouwer wrote: Question for the others: What's the difference of \dodoubleargument and \dodoubleempty? I expected \dodoubleargument to throw an error since the arguments are supposed to be mandatory. In MkIV Hans didn’t add this check and in MkII he disabled is for co

Re: [NTG-context] \define a command with square-bracket arguments

>> Question for the others: What's the difference of \dodoubleargument >> and \dodoubleempty? I expected \dodoubleargument to throw an error >> since the arguments are supposed to be mandatory. > > In MkIV Hans didn’t add this check and in MkII he disabled is for command > with three or less argume

Re: [NTG-context] \define a command with square-bracket arguments

Am 27.09.2012 um 18:16 schrieb Marco Patzer : > Question for the others: What's the difference of \dodoubleargument > and \dodoubleempty? I expected \dodoubleargument to throw an error > since the arguments are supposed to be mandatory. In MkIV Hans didn’t add this check and in MkII he disabled

<    1   2   3   4   >