On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 1/16/2017 11:27 PM, Jeong Dal wrote:
>
>> If I remove either “%” or the formula, then the output looks fine.
>
>
> indeed, some subtle end-par-too-late-then-and-grouping issue
>
> Hans
>
> -
On 1/16/2017 11:27 PM, Jeong Dal wrote:
If I remove either “%” or the formula, then the output looks fine.
indeed, some subtle end-par-too-late-then-and-grouping issue
Hans
-
Hans Hagen
Dear Mikael,
I didn’t see any problem which you mentioned when I run it under the ConTeXt
version 2016.10. 6 MKIV beta.
But I saw a change the vertical space when I run it under ConTeXt version 2016.
12. 28 MKIV beta after updated the bata.
I tested in several ways and found that the vertical
On 1/16/2017 12:56 PM, Otared Kavian wrote:
Hi Mikael,
Thanks for making it clear to me: I was looking for the changes in vertical
spacing around the formula… Now it is clear that there is a bug in the vertical
spacing: when I typeset your example with mkii or mkiv ConTeXt Version
2016.05.17
Hi Mikael,
Thanks for making it clear to me: I was looking for the changes in vertical
spacing around the formula… Now it is clear that there is a bug in the vertical
spacing: when I typeset your example with mkii or mkiv ConTeXt Version
2016.05.17 from TeXLive, the issue is not present, as one
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Otared Kavian wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
>
> To make sure we are talking about the same issue, here are the outputs
> obtained with and without blank lines around \startformula…\stopformula: Can
> you please send me too your outputs so I can compare with mines?
>
> Bes
Hi Mikael,
To make sure we are talking about the same issue, here are the outputs obtained
with and without blank lines around \startformula…\stopformula: Can you please
send me too your outputs so I can compare with mines?
Best regards: OK
formula-vertical-distance-with.pdf
Description: Adob
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Otared Kavian wrote:
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>> I tested your example but I see no difference in the outputs, with, or
>> without a blank line between the text and the displayed formula.
>> I am using ConteXt
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Otared Kavian wrote:
> Hi Mikael,
>
> I tested your example but I see no difference in the outputs, with, or
> without a blank line between the text and the displayed formula.
> I am using ConteXt 2016.12.28 17:55 MKIV beta.
>
> Best regards: OK
>
>> On 13 Jan 201
Hi Mikael,
I tested your example but I see no difference in the outputs, with, or without
a blank line between the text and the displayed formula.
I am using ConteXt 2016.12.28 17:55 MKIV beta.
Best regards: OK
> On 13 Jan 2017, at 14:13, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:
>
> Dear list,
>
> please
Dear list,
please have a look at the output (ctx-example13.pdf) of the somewhat
ugly example below. The vertical space before the paragraph with the
displayed formula is almost none. If I remove the % signs before and
after the formula, the space before the paragraph looks ok.
Do I have to enter
Quoting Oliver Buerschaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This thread brings up something that I have been thinking of for a
>> while. Similar problems occur in amsmath aligned family which accepts
>> an optional argument. mathtools.sty has an option so that the optional
>> argument will work only if pla
> This thread brings up something that I have been thinking of for a
> while. Similar problems occur in amsmath aligned family which accepts
> an optional argument. mathtools.sty has an option so that the optional
> argument will work only if placed on the same line. In terms of
> ConTeXt
> that
Quoting Oliver Buerschaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wolfgang, Jelle,
>
> thanks for your suggestions ... problem solved!
This thread brings up something that I have been thinking of for a
while. Similar problems occur in amsmath aligned family which accepts
an optional argument. mathtools.sty has
Wolfgang, Jelle,
thanks for your suggestions ... problem solved!
Oliver
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I desperately need your help ... why does the following code not
>> produce my formula?
>>
>> \starttext
>> \startformula
>
> \startformula\relax
>
> or
>
> \startformula[]
>
>> [-iH(A),-iH(B)]=-iH([A,B]
> I desperately need your help ... why does the following code not
> produce my formula?
>
> \starttext
> \startformula
> [-iH(A),-iH(B)]=-iH([A,B])
> \stopformula
> \stoptext
Hi Olivier,
I don't know what ConTeXt is doing behind the scenes, but I found two
solutions:
\starttext
\startformula
2007/7/19, Oliver Buerschaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi folks,
>
> I desperately need your help ... why does the following code not
> produce my formula?
>
> \starttext
> \startformula
\startformula\relax
or
\startformula[]
> [-iH(A),-iH(B)]=-iH([A,B])
> \stopformula
> \stoptext
>
> I have a fe
Hi folks,
I desperately need your help ... why does the following code not
produce my formula?
\starttext
\startformula
[-iH(A),-iH(B)]=-iH([A,B])
\stopformula
\stoptext
I have a feeling that ConTeXt interprets the first part of my formula
as an argument to \startformula ...
Thanks for your
[this bounced before, I think due to disk space being used up on the
mailman server. Hopefully you don't get it twice]
Wolfgang Schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I played yesterday I bit with your example and can you give now
> a solution for your problem.
At first I thought I'd need to
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:36:33 +0100
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It works for me if put a \par or a empty line after the first
> > \input.
>
> That's true, but doing so ends the paragraph. Shouldn't the displayed
> math be part of the paragraph? The \input tufte's were just to m
> It works for me if put a \par or a empty line after the first
> \input.
That's true, but doing so ends the paragraph. Shouldn't the displayed
math be part of the paragraph? The \input tufte's were just to make
the minimal example. It came from a paragraph with text and math that
begins with a
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 01:15:35 -0400
Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the following small example, two squares are cut out of the long
> paragraph. The first is where the external figure belongs and goes, so
> no problem with that. But the second removed square is after the
> display
In the following small example, two squares are cut out of the long
paragraph. The first is where the external figure belongs and goes, so
no problem with that. But the second removed square is after the
displayed equation, and it shouldn't be removed. If I comment out the
formula, then the para
23 matches
Mail list logo