Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 04.03.2011 um 19:56 schrieb Hans Hagen:
On 4-3-2011 7:05, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you
replace only the _ by !
because an ! stands out; anyway, we should avoid multiple _ in a row
It may stand out but it looks even worse. I replaces now multiple _ except in a
two cases where i found no solution which looks satisfying to me, this is one:
\unexpanded\def\annotation_placement_define
{\dodoubleargument\annotation_placement__define}
\def\annotation_placement__define[#name][#command]%
{\setvalue{annotation:#name}{#command}}
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 06.03.2011 um 00:03 schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 4-3-2011 7:05, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you
replace only the _ by !
because an ! stands out; anyway, we should avoid multiple _ in a row
(i'll put a few mkvi modules in the core to get a feeling .. using _ does
not always look better btw)
Here is an experiment with @ and _. I would prefer to change @ to :: (but for
that we would need to change the ptrcatcodes).
+1 for “:”
I can then change this
\unexpanded\def\annotation_placement_define
{\dodoubleargument\annotation_placement__define}
\def\annotation_placement__define[#name][#command]%
{\setvalue{annotation:#name}{#command}}
to (took the “o” from latex3 :)
\unexpanded\def\annotation_placement_define
{\dodoubleargument\annotation_placement_define:oo}
\def\annotation_placement_define:oo[#name][#command]%
{\setvalue{annotation:#name}{#command}}
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, luigi scarso wrote: On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl wrote: On 4-3-2011 12:55, Aditya Mahajan wrote: I also like \module_command. That is better than \modulecommand that I have been using. Of course, this means that _ should not have its usual meaning. I haven't checked on how \unprotect works in MkII. If it makes _ a letter, then I'll switch to \module_command. the main disadvantage of _ (at least in the past) is that it can get invisible on a low res screen Another option might be to use \module.command with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel. indeed, but unfortunately it clashes with . being other in dimensions (althoug i can imagine that we patch luatex to accept it) why not \module:command Wrong catcode :-( I would prefer the C++ style module::command A single : is not visually distinct. Aditya ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011, Hans Hagen wrote: On 4-3-2011 7:05, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you replace only the _ by ! because an ! stands out; anyway, we should avoid multiple _ in a row (i'll put a few mkvi modules in the core to get a feeling .. using _ does not always look better btw) Here is an experiment with @ and _. I would prefer to change @ to :: (but for that we would need to change the ptrcatcodes). https://github.com/adityam/filter/raw/dev/t-filter.tex Aditya ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On 4-3-2011 12:55, Aditya Mahajan wrote: I also like \module_command. That is better than \modulecommand that I have been using. Of course, this means that _ should not have its usual meaning. I haven't checked on how \unprotect works in MkII. If it makes _ a letter, then I'll switch to \module_command. the main disadvantage of _ (at least in the past) is that it can get invisible on a low res screen Another option might be to use \module.command with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel. indeed, but unfortunately it clashes with . being other in dimensions (althoug i can imagine that we patch luatex to accept it) I know that \do \dodo \dododo is not the best notation, but I don't find _ __ ___ better. I don’t like the __ and ___ either but do you know a better way for good names without using do, dodo, nodo, yes or nop? we can have module_do_bla or module_x_bla module_xx_bla etc I find that \module__command and \module___command are hard to distinguish. For helper macros, a better idea might be: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!! or \module_!_command \module_!!_command These commands are easy to distinguish visually. But this will not work for too well for three or four levels. I think that none of the schemes look good for three or four levels. Perhaps we could mix both existing schemes to get something reasonable: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!do \module_command!redo or maybe \module_command \module_command_one \module_command_two \module_command_three or \module_command_a \module_command_b \module_command_aa (used by _a) etc actually we can use ^ if we want: \module_^_command \module_^^_command Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On 4-3-2011 12:55, Aditya Mahajan wrote: Another option might be to use \module.command with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel. in a mkvi file we can actually support \module.command if we want as we can convert it into \module_command so both would be equivalent then - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Hans Hagen pra...@wxs.nl wrote: On 4-3-2011 12:55, Aditya Mahajan wrote: I also like \module_command. That is better than \modulecommand that I have been using. Of course, this means that _ should not have its usual meaning. I haven't checked on how \unprotect works in MkII. If it makes _ a letter, then I'll switch to \module_command. the main disadvantage of _ (at least in the past) is that it can get invisible on a low res screen Another option might be to use \module.command with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel. indeed, but unfortunately it clashes with . being other in dimensions (althoug i can imagine that we patch luatex to accept it) why not \module:command ? (it's erlang style) -- luigi ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 04.03.2011 um 11:33 schrieb Hans Hagen: I don’t like the __ and ___ either but do you know a better way for good names without using do, dodo, nodo, yes or nop? we can have module_do_bla or module_x_bla module_xx_bla etc I think module_bla, module_bla_do, module_bla_redo etc. is better I find that \module__command and \module___command are hard to distinguish. For helper macros, a better idea might be: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!! or \module_!_command \module_!!_command In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you replace only the _ by ! These commands are easy to distinguish visually. But this will not work for too well for three or four levels. I think that none of the schemes look good for three or four levels. Perhaps we could mix both existing schemes to get something reasonable: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!do \module_command!redo or maybe \module_command \module_command_one \module_command_two \module_command_three or \module_command_a \module_command_b \module_command_aa (used by _a) +1 etc actually we can use ^ if we want: \module_^_command \module_^^_command Just another form of module_!_command or module__command. 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On 4-3-2011 7:05, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: In which are these alternatives are better than my module__command, you replace only the _ by ! because an ! stands out; anyway, we should avoid multiple _ in a row (i'll put a few mkvi modules in the core to get a feeling .. using _ does not always look better btw) Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
[NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Currently I am using something like
\defineenumeration[lemma]
[location=serried,
headstyle=bold,
text=Lemma,
width=broad,
style=italic]
to define theorems, lemmas, etc.
Sometimes a theorem or lemma will have its own name (e.g. Yoneda Lemma),
and I find it slightly cumbersome to write something like
3.1 Theorem (Yoneda Lemma)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda Lemma)
and was really hoping that
\startlemma[text={Yoneda Lemma}]
would give me the desired
3.1 Yoneda Lemma
but it doesn't. I would like to keep the whole setup the same and only
change the text for this instance. Is there any way to implement this
except for defining a whole new enumeration for one
theorem/lemma/proposition by
\startenumeration[text={Yoneda Lemma},location= ... ]
Thank you.
Severin
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Hi Severin,
Maybe this is what you want:
% begin
%% defining \proclaim which is built in Plain-teX
%% but has disappeared from ConTeXt
\defineenumeration[proclaim]
[text=,
style=slanted,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[proclaim][way=bysection,numbersection=yes]
%% end definition \proclaim
%% defining \remark
\defineenumeration[remark]
[text=,
style=rm,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[remark][number=proclaim]
%% end definition \remark
\starttext
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda]{Yanada Theorem}
This is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\section{A new section}
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda2]{Yanada Theorem}
As said above, this is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\stoptext
% end
Best regards: OK
On 3 mars 2011, at 09:05, S Barmeier wrote:
Currently I am using something like
\defineenumeration[lemma]
[location=serried,
headstyle=bold,
text=Lemma,
width=broad,
style=italic]
to define theorems, lemmas, etc.
Sometimes a theorem or lemma will have its own name (e.g. Yoneda Lemma),
and I find it slightly cumbersome to write something like
3.1 Theorem (Yoneda Lemma)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda Lemma)
and was really hoping that
\startlemma[text={Yoneda Lemma}]
would give me the desired
3.1 Yoneda Lemma
but it doesn't. I would like to keep the whole setup the same and only
change the text for this instance. Is there any way to implement this
except for defining a whole new enumeration for one
theorem/lemma/proposition by
\startenumeration[text={Yoneda Lemma},location= ... ]
Thank you.
Severin
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
%%
Otared Kavian
Département de Mathématiques
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin
Bâtiment Fermat
45 avenue des Etats Unis
78035 Versailles cedex
Téléphone: +33 1 39 25 46 42
Secrétariat: +33 1 39 25 46 44
Secrétariat: +33 1 39 25 46 46
e-mail: otared.kav...@math.uvsq.fr
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles numberstyle
Thank you for the quick reply, it is getting quite close. I guess the
trick is to define an enumeration for one-off use and use title= to
fake text=. The only problem is that the number sits between text and
title. So to still be able to use \starttheorem alongside
\startproclaim{Theorem}, I would need to know how to either place the
number after the title or how to place it before the text.
I'd be interested in knowing how to do both.
Also, I have problem with the numbering mechanism and the
numberstyle/textstyle/etc.
\defineenumeration[theorem]
[text=Theorem,
numberstyle=normal,
headstyle=bold,
textstyle=caps,
number=yes]
\defineenumeration[proclaim]
[text=,
number=theorem,
headstyle=bold,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=]
\starttext
\starttheorem
Abc
\stoptheorem
\startproclaim{Special Theorem}
Def
\stopproclaim
\stoptext
This gives as is no number for \startproclaim{Special Theorem}, although
I asked for number=theorem. Also, the numberstyle of \starttheorem is
not normal, but bold, and adding textstyle=normal/caps/etc. seems to
have no effect either.
Best,
Severin
On 03/03/2011 05:43 PM, ntg-context-requ...@ntg.nl wrote:
Maybe this is what you want:
% begin
%% defining \proclaim which is built in Plain-teX
%% but has disappeared from ConTeXt
\defineenumeration[proclaim]
[text=,
style=slanted,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[proclaim][way=bysection,numbersection=yes]
%% end definition \proclaim
%% defining \remark
\defineenumeration[remark]
[text=,
style=rm,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[remark][number=proclaim]
%% end definition \remark
\starttext
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda]{Yanada Theorem}
This is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\section{A new section}
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda2]{Yanada Theorem}
As said above, this is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\stoptext
% end
Best regards: OK
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles numberstyle
Hi Severin,
Actually if you are using mkiv, the definitions I sent this morning should be
slightly changed: perhaps the following suits your needs (however I don't know
how to change the style of the numbers…).
% begin
%!TEX TS-program = mkiv
%% defining \proclaim which is built in Plain-teX
%% but has disappeared from ConTeXt
%% the following is adapted for mkiv
\defineenumeration[theorem]
\setupenumerations[theorem]
[text=Theorem,
style=sc, % or slanted
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright={.},
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.},
prefix=yes,
way=bysection,
]
%% defining \remark numbered with the same counter as \proclaim
\defineenumeration[proclaim][theorem] % clone proclaim
\setupenumerations[proclaim]
[text=,
style=slanted,
title=yes,
titleright={.},
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.}]
%% end definition \remark
\starttext
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda]{Yoneda Theorem}
This is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\starttheorem
The above theorem and this one are numbered sequentially.
\stoptheorem
\section{A new section}
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda]{Yoneda Theorem}
As said above, this is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\starttheorem
The above theorem and this one are numbered sequentially.
\stoptheorem
\stoptext
%%% end
Best regards: OK
On 3 mars 2011, at 10:56, S Barmeier wrote:
Thank you for the quick reply, it is getting quite close. I guess the
trick is to define an enumeration for one-off use and use title= to
fake text=. The only problem is that the number sits between text and
title. So to still be able to use \starttheorem alongside
\startproclaim{Theorem}, I would need to know how to either place the
number after the title or how to place it before the text.
I'd be interested in knowing how to do both.
Also, I have problem with the numbering mechanism and the
numberstyle/textstyle/etc.
\defineenumeration[theorem]
[text=Theorem,
numberstyle=normal,
headstyle=bold,
textstyle=caps,
number=yes]
\defineenumeration[proclaim]
[text=,
number=theorem,
headstyle=bold,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=]
\starttext
\starttheorem
Abc
\stoptheorem
\startproclaim{Special Theorem}
Def
\stopproclaim
\stoptext
This gives as is no number for \startproclaim{Special Theorem}, although
I asked for number=theorem. Also, the numberstyle of \starttheorem is
not normal, but bold, and adding textstyle=normal/caps/etc. seems to
have no effect either.
Best,
Severin
On 03/03/2011 05:43 PM, ntg-context-requ...@ntg.nl wrote:
Maybe this is what you want:
% begin
%% defining \proclaim which is built in Plain-teX
%% but has disappeared from ConTeXt
\defineenumeration[proclaim]
[text=,
style=slanted,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[proclaim][way=bysection,numbersection=yes]
%% end definition \proclaim
%% defining \remark
\defineenumeration[remark]
[text=,
style=rm,
title=yes,
titleleft=,
titleright=,
location=serried,
width=fit,
right={.~}]
\setupnumber[remark][number=proclaim]
%% end definition \remark
\starttext
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda]{Yanada Theorem}
This is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\section{A new section}
\input knuth.tex
\startproclaim[lem:Yoneda2]{Yanada Theorem}
As said above, this is a theorem in set category theory.
\stopproclaim
\startremark{Remark}
The above theorem and this remark are numbered sequentially.
\stopremark
\stoptext
% end
Best regards: OK
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 03.03.2011 um 09:05 schrieb S Barmeier:
\startenumeration[text={Yoneda Lemma},location= ... ]
Enumeration don’t support key-val-input for the commands and environments
(although it isn’t hard to add it). The both arguments are “[reference]”
and “{title}”.
Besides the already presented solution here is one which use the annotation
module (local replacement of the enumeration text doesn’t work because
\setupenumerations resets the counter):
\usemodule[annotation]
% solution 1
%\defineenumeration
% [thelemma]
% [ location=serried,
%text=Lemma,
% width=broad]
%
%\define[2]\LemmaCommand
% {\doiftext
%{\placeannotationtitle}
%{\setupenumerations[thelemma][text=\placeannotationtitle]}%
% \startthelemma#2\stopthelemma}
\defineenumeration
[thelemma]
[ location=serried,
text=\placeannotationtitle,
width=broad]
\define[2]\LemmaCommand
{\doiftextelse{\placeannotationtitle}
{}
{\def\placeannotationtitle{Lemma}}%
\startthelemma#2\stopthelemma}
\defineannotation
[lemma]
[alternative=command,
command=\LemmaCommand]
% solution 2
%\defineenumeration
% [theproclaim]
% [ location=serried,
%text=Proclaim,
% width=broad]
%
%\define[2]\ProclaimCommand
% {\doiftext
%{\placeannotationtext}
%{\setupenumerations[theproclaim][text=\placeannotationtext]}%
% \starttheproclaim#2\stoptheproclaim}
\defineenumeration
[theproclaim]
[ location=serried,
text=\placeannotationtext,
width=broad]
\define[2]\ProclaimCommand
{\doiftextelse{\placeannotationtext}
{}
{\def\placeannotationtext{Proclaim}}%
\starttheproclaim#2\stoptheproclaim}
\defineannotation
[proclaim]
[alternative=command,
command=\ProclaimCommand]
\starttext
\startlemma
…
\stoplemma
\startlemma{Another Lemma}
…
\stoplemma
\blank[2*line]
\startproclaim
…
\stopproclaim
\startproclaim[text={Another Proclaim}]
…
\stopproclaim
\stoptext
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
With the current solution, I still have the problem that the numbers of
\starttheorem and \startproclaim{Theorem} are on the (resp.) left and
right side of the text/title and I don't know how to change that.
I still find \starttheorem[text={Special Theorem}] (and that is called
key-val-input?) the more intuitive, though. Maybe it would be worth
considering to enable such inputs - it seems many other \start...
\stop... environments allow such key-val-inputs.
The annotation module looks good from afar, I just can't find it on
contextgarden nor on tlcontrib...
Thanks,
Severin
On 03/03/2011 11:37 PM, ntg-context-requ...@ntg.nl wrote:
Enumeration don?t support key-val-input for the commands and environments
(although it isn?t hard to add it). The both arguments are ?[reference]?
and ?{title}?.
Besides the already presented solution here is one which use the annotation
module (local replacement of the enumeration text doesn?t work because
\setupenumerations resets the counter):
\usemodule[annotation]
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 03.03.2011 um 16:00 schrieb S Barmeier:
With the current solution, I still have the problem that the numbers of
\starttheorem and \startproclaim{Theorem} are on the (resp.) left and
right side of the text/title and I don't know how to change that.
The order of the elements os fixed: textnumbertitle
I still find \starttheorem[text={Special Theorem}] (and that is called
key-val-input?) the more intuitive, though. Maybe it would be worth
considering to enable such inputs - it seems many other \start...
\stop... environments allow such key-val-inputs.
It’s a old command and the syntax has changed when Hans rewrote the command for
MkIV.
The annotation module looks good from afar, I just can't find it on
contextgarden nor on tlcontrib...
It’s part of the minimals but you have to install the third party modules.
You can find it also at the modules section [1] of the wiki and a more
recent version on bitbucket [2]. There is documentation in the source
but it isn’t finished and a pdf is missing but i put a draft online [3].
[2] https://bitbucket.org/wolfs/annotation
[1] http://modules.contextgarden.net/annotation
[3] http://d.pr/7FhB
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, S Barmeier wrote:
Currently I am using something like
\defineenumeration[lemma]
[location=serried,
headstyle=bold,
text=Lemma,
width=broad,
style=italic]
to define theorems, lemmas, etc.
Sometimes a theorem or lemma will have its own name (e.g. Yoneda Lemma),
and I find it slightly cumbersome to write something like
3.1 Theorem (Yoneda Lemma)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda)
3.1 Lemma (Yoneda Lemma)
and was really hoping that
\startlemma[text={Yoneda Lemma}]
would give me the desired
3.1 Yoneda Lemma
but it doesn't. I would like to keep the whole setup the same and only
change the text for this instance. Is there any way to implement this
except for defining a whole new enumeration for one
theorem/lemma/proposition by
\startenumeration[text={Yoneda Lemma},location= ... ]
@Hans: Does it make sense to redo all the theorem etc using the new
structure code? There is a little difference between
\startsection \stopsection
\starttheorem \stoptheorem
except that in enumerations the title is optional and there are a few
predefined header styles (location=whatever), and enumerations have a
closesymbol.
That will easily allow:
\startthoerem[text={Yoneda Lemma}]
etc and one will also get the option of setting the list text, bookmarks,
and page marks.
Aditya
___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Am 03.03.2011 um 09:05 schrieb S Barmeier:
\startenumeration[text={Yoneda Lemma},location= ... ]
Enumeration don’t support key-val-input for the commands and environments
(although it isn’t hard to add it). The both arguments are “[reference]”
and “{title}”.
Besides the already presented solution here is one which use the annotation
module (local replacement of the enumeration text doesn’t work because
\setupenumerations resets the counter):
\usemodule[annotation]
A very useful module to have! But how is it different from enumerations
(apart from having a modern interface)? in particular, would you consider
reimplimenting definitions and enumerations by using annotations as a
base?
I am a bit surprised by the naming of the internal macros:
annotation_cmd
annotation__cmd
annotation___cmd
I know that \do \dodo \dododo is not the best notation, but I don't find
_ __ ___ better.
Aditya___
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
Am 03.03.2011 um 19:18 schrieb Aditya Mahajan:
\usemodule[annotation]
A very useful module to have! But how is it different from enumerations
(apart from having a modern interface)? in particular, would you consider
reimplimenting definitions and enumerations by using annotations as a base?
That’s only one way what you can use the module for. The main purpose are todo
lists etc., e.g.
\defineannotation[todo]
\starttext
\todo{Add a table}
\stoptext
And later you can remove all remaining \todo texts with
\setupannotation[todo][alternative=none]
I am a bit surprised by the naming of the internal macros:
annotation_cmd
annotation__cmd
annotation___cmd
I liked the LaTeX3 system to have names in the form \module_command,
with this you have a easy way to protect internal commands and to avoid
command clashes, e.g. you define the command \getfirstcharacter in your
filter module but this name is already used in the core (syst-aux.mkiv)
and with the name \filter_getfirstcharacter you can avoid this without
thinking too much about a good name.
I know that \do \dodo \dododo is not the best notation, but I don't find _ __
___ better.
I don’t like the __ and ___ either but do you know a better way for good
names without using do, dodo, nodo, yes or nop?
I first thought about this:
\def\module_command
{\dosingleempty\module_docommand}
\def\module_docommand[#1]{}
but i don’t liked it and in the end i use now this:
\def\module_command
{\dosingleempty\module__command}
\def\module__command[#1]{}
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://tex.aanhet.net
archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___
Re: [NTG-context] One-off theorem titles
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Wolfgang Schuster wrote: I am a bit surprised by the naming of the internal macros: annotation_cmd annotation__cmd annotation___cmd I liked the LaTeX3 system to have names in the form \module_command, with this you have a easy way to protect internal commands and to avoid command clashes, I also like \module_command. That is better than \modulecommand that I have been using. Of course, this means that _ should not have its usual meaning. I haven't checked on how \unprotect works in MkII. If it makes _ a letter, then I'll switch to \module_command. Another option might be to use \module.command with . having the right catcode. That will give macro names a more OOP feel. e.g. you define the command \getfirstcharacter in your filter module but this name is already used in the core (syst-aux.mkiv) and with the name \filter_getfirstcharacter you can avoid this without thinking too much about a good name. I didn't know that. I'll change that name. So far, I have been using \externafilltercommand for most commands, and sometimes it gets unreadable. I know that \do \dodo \dododo is not the best notation, but I don't find _ __ ___ better. I don’t like the __ and ___ either but do you know a better way for good names without using do, dodo, nodo, yes or nop? I find that \module__command and \module___command are hard to distinguish. For helper macros, a better idea might be: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!! These commands are easy to distinguish visually. But this will not work for too well for three or four levels. I think that none of the schemes look good for three or four levels. Perhaps we could mix both existing schemes to get something reasonable: \module_command \module_command! \module_command!do \module_command!redo or maybe \module_command \module_command_one \module_command_two \module_command_three etc. Aditya ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
