Re: [NTG-context] new features
On 5/22/2016 3:33 PM, Meer, Hans van der wrote: On 22 May 2016, at 15:11, Hans Hagen mailto:pra...@wxs.nl>> wrote: Finally, when \definemode makes testing a lot faster why than not implement this always? That is, using \enablemode or \disablemode the first time implies a \definemode for that mode. Doing so avoids another macro to remember: less clutter for my brain ;-) because one property of modes is that one doesn't have to define them, you'd be quite unhappy if you would have to define all possible modes that could be introduced in styles The idea was not to have the user define the mode, but let ConTeXt automatically do the defining when it encounters a specific mode the first time. The work is done by ConTeXt then (would make me even more happy ;-) it does define them when undefined but even then it gets a special state (modes can be in enable, disable or prevent state) normnally it's not something a user need to worry about Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] new features
On 22 May 2016, at 15:11, Hans Hagen mailto:pra...@wxs.nl>> wrote: Finally, when \definemode makes testing a lot faster why than not implement this always? That is, using \enablemode or \disablemode the first time implies a \definemode for that mode. Doing so avoids another macro to remember: less clutter for my brain ;-) because one property of modes is that one doesn't have to define them, you'd be quite unhappy if you would have to define all possible modes that could be introduced in styles The idea was not to have the user define the mode, but let ConTeXt automatically do the defining when it encounters a specific mode the first time. The work is done by ConTeXt then (would make me even more happy ;-) Hans van der Meer ___ 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] new features
On 5/22/2016 10:07 AM, Meer, Hans van der wrote: On 26 Jun 2014, at 12:08, Hans Hagen wrote: Another addition is that \definemode[something][keep] define an undefined mode; the keep makes sure that the already set value is kept (another option is 'yes'). Using defined modes (that is, set with: \enablemode, \disablemode or \definemode) can be tested about twice as fast as undefined modes which can make a small difference I do not understand this fully: - if the mode is undefined, how can "define an undefined mode" for a mode that has already been given a value with either \enablemode or \disablemode keep a value? Must not \enablemode, \disablemode do some sort of 'defining' in order to facilitate testing? Does "define" here implements some other mechanism than the 'defining' done by \enablemod, \disablemode? it's more an internal issue. less checking at the tex end and so .. it's only relevant when you check modes tens of thousands of times in a run Is this what happens: - if \enablemode or \disablemode has been used before to set a value for the mode, than \definemode[themode][keep] stashes some special definition of that mode and does not change c.q. transfers its value; - \definemode[themode][yes] and \definemode[themode][no] always set that value for the mode in case, regardless of what has been done by a preceding \enablemode or \disablemode. Is that the correct interpretation? Just to make sure I understand. Finally, when \definemode makes testing a lot faster why than not implement this always? That is, using \enablemode or \disablemode the first time implies a \definemode for that mode. Doing so avoids another macro to remember: less clutter for my brain ;-) because one property of modes is that one doesn't have to define them, you'd be quite unhappy if you would have to define all possible modes that could be introduced in styles Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | 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] new features
> On 26 Jun 2014, at 12:08, Hans Hagen wrote: > > Another addition is that > > \definemode[something][keep] > > define an undefined mode; the keep makes sure that the already set value is > kept (another option is 'yes'). > > Using defined modes (that is, set with: \enablemode, \disablemode or > \definemode) can be tested about twice as fast as undefined modes which can > make a small difference I do not understand this fully: - if the mode is undefined, how can "define an undefined mode" for a mode that has already been given a value with either \enablemode or \disablemode keep a value? Must not \enablemode, \disablemode do some sort of 'defining' in order to facilitate testing? Does "define" here implements some other mechanism than the 'defining' done by \enablemod, \disablemode? Is this what happens: - if \enablemode or \disablemode has been used before to set a value for the mode, than \definemode[themode][keep] stashes some special definition of that mode and does not change c.q. transfers its value; - \definemode[themode][yes] and \definemode[themode][no] always set that value for the mode in case, regardless of what has been done by a preceding \enablemode or \disablemode. Is that the correct interpretation? Just to make sure I understand. Finally, when \definemode makes testing a lot faster why than not implement this always? That is, using \enablemode or \disablemode the first time implies a \definemode for that mode. Doing so avoids another macro to remember: less clutter for my brain ;-) Hans van der Meer ___ 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] new features
Hi,
(mostly for Thomas)
In the next beta:
When you include files in another file (using xmlinclude) we now
register what gets included. There are two new commands:
\xmlinclusion{#1} : the current inclusion
\xmlinclusions{#1} : a list of inclusions
the first one backtracks till it find a name and the second one will
locate the root if needed. This option can be handy for tracing (i.e.
seeing where input comes from).
Another addition is that
\definemode[something][keep]
define an undefined mode; the keep makes sure that the already set value
is kept (another option is 'yes').
Using defined modes (that is, set with: \enabledmode, \disablemode or
\definemode) can be tested about twice as fast as undefined modes which
can make a small difference when modes are tested lots of times.
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
___
