Re: [NTG-context] meaning of error message?

[Wolfgang Schuster]

Alan Bowen 
29. November 2015 um 14:49
Hi, Wolfgang—

at line 34, I have \Query
which is defined:
\definehighlight[Query][color=magenta,style=bold]

There also instances of \emph (\definehighlight[emph][style=italic]) 
at lines 41 and 58.
You have create a minimal example (or provide your source offlist) 
because I wasn’t able to reproduce the error with your code snippet.


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] meaning of error message?

[Alan Bowen]

Hi, Wolfgang—

at line 34, I have \Query
which is defined:
\definehighlight[Query][color=magenta,style=bold]

There also instances of \emph (\definehighlight[emph][style=italic]) at
lines 41 and 58.

Alan


On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Wolfgang Schuster <
schuster.wolfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan Bowen 
> 25. November 2015 um 17:33
> Hi, Wolfgang—
>
> The lines from the file are:
>
>
> \startextract   <— LINE 43
> \startparagraph
> \startlines
> .
> .
> \footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests
> that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as
> is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second
> paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola}
> in the whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always
> introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in
> contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}».
> Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the
> «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ
> οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal
> mistake. I regard the correction as certain, given the strictly analogous
> structure of the immediately following sentence. Nothing in the
> interpretation that I shall develop depends on this textual detail,
> however.}
> %
> Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-}
> νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ
> μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-}
> <—LINE 62
> νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ
> %
> \footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place
> where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination
> of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status
> of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more
> precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph:
> «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».}
> %
> \Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν
> τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ
> λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04]  ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-}
> %
> \footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very
> likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the
> mistake is a haplography or a dittography.}
> %
> μορίουϲ.
> \stoplines
> \stopparagraph
> \stopextract  <— LINE 80
>
>
> ​Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.
>
> Did you create a command with \definehighlight which is used in this part
> of the document?
>
> 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
>
> ___
>
___
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] meaning of error message?

[Wolfgang Schuster]

Alan Bowen 
25. November 2015 um 17:33
Hi, Wolfgang—

The lines from the file are:


\startextract <— LINE 43
\startparagraph
\startlines
.
.
\footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests 
that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly 
adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening 
the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of 
the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal 
clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them 
the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical 
«{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The 
only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause 
such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is 
surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as 
certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately 
following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop 
depends on this textual detail, however.}

%
Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-}
νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ
μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-} <—LINE 62
νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ
%
\footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a 
place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a 
determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly 
less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and 
numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second 
line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ 
λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».}

%
\Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν
τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ
λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04]  ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-}
%
\footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very 
likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the 
mistake is a haplography or a dittography.}

%
μορίουϲ.
\stoplines
\stopparagraph
\stopextract <— LINE 80


​Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.

Did you create a command with \definehighlight which is used in this 
part of the document?


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] meaning of error message?

[Alan Bowen]

Hi, Wolfgang—

The lines from the file are:


\startextract   <— LINE 43
\startparagraph
\startlines
.
.
\footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests that
something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as is
the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second paragraph.
This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola} in the
whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always introduced by
conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in contraposition are
regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}»
is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence
[lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas
epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the
correction as certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the
immediately following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall
develop depends on this textual detail, however.}
%
Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-}
νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ
μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-}   <—
   LINE 62
νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ
%
\footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place
where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination
of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status
of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more
precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph:
«{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».}
%
\Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν
τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ
λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04]  ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-}
%
\footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very
likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the
mistake is a haplography or a dittography.}
%
μορίουϲ.
\stoplines
\stopparagraph
\stopextract  <— LINE 80


​Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.

Alan
​

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Wolfgang Schuster <
schuster.wolfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alan Bowen 
> 24. November 2015 um 20:47
> I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files now
> have generated this sort of error message:
>
> lua error   > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:
>
>
> .../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad
> argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)
>
> stack traceback:
>
> [C]: in function 'lpegmatch'
>
> .../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in
> function 'strippedtag'
>
> .../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in
> function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>
>
> (...tail calls...)
>
> Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my encoding or
> a problem in lua?
>
> What’s the content of line 62 (plus a few lines before/after) in your file
> c_Int_A002_Acerbi.tex?
>
> 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
>
> ___
>
___
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] meaning of error message?

[Wolfgang Schuster]

Alan Bowen 
24. November 2015 um 20:47
I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files 
now have generated this sort of error message:


lua error > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:


.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad 
argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)


stack traceback:

[C]: in function 'lpegmatch'

.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in 
function 'strippedtag'


.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in 
function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>


(...tail calls...)


Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my 
encoding or a problem in lua?
What’s the content of line 62 (plus a few lines before/after) in your 
file c_Int_A002_Acerbi.tex?


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
___