Happy New Year all! Following up on the problem with \autoinsertnextspace (https://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2022/107111.html) and the new \autoinsertedspace that came from that report, I see that there is still a problem, or perhaps a problem again after it was previously repaired. The following code, run under the latest (and recent previous) version, produces an incorrect result, with no space inserted where expected in many cases. As the first examples after \starttext show, the problem appears to be with \autoinsertedspace, but perhaps I am using it incorrectly in the macro as well. \starttexdefinition unexpanded BD \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition doBD #1#2 \removeunwantedspaces\ % insert a space ( \ifsecondargument #1|–|#2 \else\iffirstargument #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi\fi ) \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition \tt \starttext This\autoinsertedspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\autoinsertedspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\autoinsertnextspace works with autoinsertnextspace.\par This\autoinsertnextspace \emph{fails} as expected with autoinsertnextspace.\par Saussure\BD{1857}{1913} works.\par Saussure \BD{1857}{1913} \emph{works}.\par Saussure \BD{1857}{1913}. Works.\par Chomsky\BD{1928} fails with LMTX, works with MkIV.\par Chomsky \BD{1928} \emph{fails with LMTX, works with MkIV}.\par Chomsky \BD{1928}. Works.\par \BD blah\par \contextversion\ \texenginename \stoptext -- Rik
No change with the latest (2023.01.04). Is this a problem with what I am doing, or a bug? -- Rik On 2022-12-29 19:12, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
Happy New Year all!
Following up on the problem with \autoinsertnextspace (https://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2022/107111.html) and the new \autoinsertedspace that came from that report, I see that there is still a problem, or perhaps a problem again after it was previously repaired.
The following code, run under the latest (and recent previous) version, produces an incorrect result, with no space inserted where expected in many cases. As the first examples after \starttext show, the problem appears to be with \autoinsertedspace, but perhaps I am using it incorrectly in the macro as well.
\starttexdefinition unexpanded BD \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition
\starttexdefinition doBD #1#2 \removeunwantedspaces\ % insert a space ( \ifsecondargument #1|–|#2 \else\iffirstargument #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi\fi ) \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition
\tt
\starttext This\autoinsertedspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\autoinsertedspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\autoinsertnextspace works with autoinsertnextspace.\par This\autoinsertnextspace \emph{fails} as expected with autoinsertnextspace.\par Saussure\BD{1857}{1913} works.\par Saussure \BD{1857}{1913} \emph{works}.\par Saussure \BD{1857}{1913}. Works.\par Chomsky\BD{1928} fails with LMTX, works with MkIV.\par Chomsky \BD{1928} \emph{fails with LMTX, works with MkIV}.\par Chomsky \BD{1928}. Works.\par \BD blah\par \contextversion\ \texenginename \stoptext
-- Rik
___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!
maillist :ntg-context@ntg.nl /https://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage :https://www.pragma-ade.nl /http://context.aanhet.net archive :https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki :https://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
On 1/4/2023 11:10 PM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
No change with the latest (2023.01.04).
Is this a problem with what I am doing, or a bug? well, it's new and not thtat tested ... we need to specify it
This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par there can be more variants, like do we want to remove preceding spaces? we already have: This\optionalspace, fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace, \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On 2023-01-04 18:45, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 1/4/2023 11:10 PM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
No change with the latest (2023.01.04).
Is this a problem with what I am doing, or a bug? well, it's new and not thtat tested ... we need to specify it
This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
there can be more variants, like do we want to remove preceding spaces?
we already have:
This\optionalspace, fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace, \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
\optionalspace works correctly (that is, as I want it to) for all of my use cases under both MkIV and LMTX. Is there any reason that this should not be used in user documents? I do wonder what characters are considered "punctuation" for the purpose of suppressing the next space. The standard six sentence termination characters (?!.:;,) are honored, and so are many others (quotation marks, including guillemot, square and curly braces, and parens). But sentence opening characters (¿¡) are as well. Vertical bars (|¦) and basic mathematical characters (+-=*) are not treated as punctuation. Where (in the source or manuals) are these to be found? As far as removing leading spaces, I do not see that it is necessary, but it may help create more readable sources. Thank you for the fix. -- Rik
On 1/5/2023 4:21 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
On 2023-01-04 18:45, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 1/4/2023 11:10 PM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
No change with the latest (2023.01.04).
Is this a problem with what I am doing, or a bug? well, it's new and not thtat tested ... we need to specify it
This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
there can be more variants, like do we want to remove preceding spaces?
we already have:
This\optionalspace, fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace, \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
\optionalspace works correctly (that is, as I want it to) for all of my use cases under both MkIV and LMTX. Is there any reason that this should not be used in user documents?
depends ... it checks punctuation
I do wonder what characters are considered "punctuation" for the purpose of suppressing the next space. The standard six sentence termination characters (?!.:;,) are honored, and so are many others (quotation marks, including guillemot, square and curly braces, and parens). But sentence opening characters (¿¡) are as well. Vertical bars (|¦) and basic mathematical characters (+-=*) are not treated as punctuation. Where (in the source or manuals) are these to be found?
we use unicode properties (collected in char-def.lua)
As far as removing leading spaces, I do not see that it is necessary, but it may help create more readable sources.
Thank you for the fix.
----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On 1/5/2023 4:21 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
On 2023-01-04 18:45, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 1/4/2023 11:10 PM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
No change with the latest (2023.01.04).
Is this a problem with what I am doing, or a bug? well, it's new and not thtat tested ... we need to specify it
This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
there can be more variants, like do we want to remove preceding spaces?
we already have:
This\optionalspace, fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace, \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace fails unexpectedly with autoinsertedspace.\par This\optionalspace \emph{fails unexpectedly} with autoinsertedspace.\par
\optionalspace works correctly (that is, as I want it to) for all of my use cases under both MkIV and LMTX. Is there any reason that this should not be used in user documents?
I do wonder what characters are considered "punctuation" for the purpose of suppressing the next space. The standard six sentence termination characters (?!.:;,) are honored, and so are many others (quotation marks, including guillemot, square and curly braces, and parens). But sentence opening characters (¿¡) are as well. Vertical bars (|¦) and basic mathematical characters (+-=*) are not treated as punctuation. Where (in the source or manuals) are these to be found?
As far as removing leading spaces, I do not see that it is necessary, but it may help create more readable sources.
Thank you for the fix.
Here is a more lmtx-ish variant: \starttexdefinition tolerant protected BD #=#*#= \removeunwantedspaces \space % insert a space ( \ifparameter#2\or #1|–|#2 \orelse\ifparameter#1\or #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi ) \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On 2023-01-05 04:35, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
On 1/5/2023 4:21 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
[ snipped by rik]
Here is a more lmtx-ish variant:
\starttexdefinition tolerant protected BD #=#*#= \removeunwantedspaces \space % insert a space ( \ifparameter#2\or #1|–|#2 \orelse\ifparameter#1\or #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi ) \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition
Hans
Thank you for that. This works for me with \optionalspace, but fails in some cases with \autoinsertedspace. I have now re-read lowlevel-macros.pdf and have a better understanding of what I read when first I approached it; I still have a way to go. /Tolerant/ removes the need for /dodoubleempty/ and friends and the two-step /macro/ and /doMacro/ dance. There was a small advantage to the two-step, however. I had two separate macros, BD and BDNP (no parens), as shown. The old code in full was: %-------------------- Birth and death dates -----------------------% % Ferdinand de Saussure\BD{1857}{1913} % Noam Chomsky \BD{1928} % % Perhaps this could be tied to an acronym-like database so that the % dates are printed only once per person. % \removeunwantedspaces allows this to directly follow, or follow % after whitespace, the associated name: Name\BD{1}{2} or % Name \BD{1}{2}. % Using the compound indication (|–|) allows hyphenation after the % endash. Omitting it and using a bare endash inhibits hyphenation % ‘twixt the endash and the paren. % By default, add parens around the dates. If none are needed due to % the context, use \BDNP. % \newif\ifBDParen \starttexdefinition unexpanded BD \BDParentrue \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition unexpanded BDNP \BDParenfalse \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition doBD #1#2 \removeunwantedspaces\ \ifBDParen(\fi \ifsecondargument #1|–|#2 \else\iffirstargument #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi\fi \ifBDParen)\fi \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition Both call the same doBD, but they set a flag (newif) to control insertion or not of the parens. While there is no performance benefit compared to having two fully separate macros, there is a maintenance benefit in having only one place, doBD, to make changes should they be required. Can you suggest a way to do this under the new one-step scheme, or am I over-thinking this? Finally, is there any reason to go back to previously written and properly functioning macros and convert them to the LMTX-only syntax? It does imply committing to LMTX-only (or -- Rik
On 1/6/2023 3:05 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
On 2023-01-05 04:35, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
On 1/5/2023 4:21 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
[ snipped by rik]
Here is a more lmtx-ish variant:
\starttexdefinition tolerant protected BD #=#*#= \removeunwantedspaces \space % insert a space ( \ifparameter#2\or #1|–|#2 \orelse\ifparameter#1\or #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi ) \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition
Hans
Thank you for that. This works for me with \optionalspace, but fails in some cases with \autoinsertedspace.
I have now re-read lowlevel-macros.pdf and have a better understanding of what I read when first I approached it; I still have a way to go.
/Tolerant/ removes the need for /dodoubleempty/ and friends and the two-step /macro/ and /doMacro/ dance. There was a small advantage to the two-step, however. I had two separate macros, BD and BDNP (no parens), as shown.
The old code in full was:
%-------------------- Birth and death dates -----------------------% % Ferdinand de Saussure\BD{1857}{1913} % Noam Chomsky \BD{1928} % % Perhaps this could be tied to an acronym-like database so that the % dates are printed only once per person. % \removeunwantedspaces allows this to directly follow, or follow % after whitespace, the associated name: Name\BD{1}{2} or % Name \BD{1}{2}. % Using the compound indication (|–|) allows hyphenation after the % endash. Omitting it and using a bare endash inhibits hyphenation % ‘twixt the endash and the paren. % By default, add parens around the dates. If none are needed due to % the context, use \BDNP. % \newif\ifBDParen \starttexdefinition unexpanded BD \BDParentrue \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition unexpanded BDNP \BDParenfalse \dodoublegroupempty \doBD \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition doBD #1#2 \removeunwantedspaces\ \ifBDParen(\fi \ifsecondargument #1|–|#2 \else\iffirstargument #1– \else {\red I NEED A DATE OR DATES!} \fi\fi \ifBDParen)\fi \autoinsertedspace \stoptexdefinition
Both call the same doBD, but they set a flag (newif) to control insertion or not of the parens. While there is no performance benefit compared to having two fully separate macros, there is a maintenance benefit in having only one place, doBD, to make changes should they be required.
Can you suggest a way to do this under the new one-step scheme, or am I over-thinking this?
just remove the #* in the example i sent, \starttexdefinition tolerant protected BD #=#= Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Hans Hagen -
Hans Hagen -
Rik Kabel