On 2013–08–21 Hans Hagen wrote: > On 8/21/2013 2:25 AM, Thangalin wrote: > >Hi, > > > >What would it take to extend \definecolor so that: > > > > \definecolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] > > > >defines a new colour (ColourB) based on an existing colour (ColourA)? > > > >I know that \definespotcolor[ColourA][ColourB][t=0.5, a=1] works, but > >it seems like \definecolor would also be a natural fit. > > hm, afaik no one ever needed that (normally one defines colors once > on top of the document and there are seldom many of them) > > anyhow, as general inheritance is pretty fuzzy i.e. cloning a spot > color and changing some rgb component or cloning a cmyk color and > setting rgb components it will not be a feature of definecolor > > I've added \defineprocesscolor that cna be used as follows:
Are you sure it's a good idea to add another colour definition mechanism? Then we have \definecolor \defineglobalcolor \definenamedcolor \definespotcolor \definemultitonecolor \defineprocesscolor This is getting a little confusing, in my opinion. If the only difference between \definespotcolor and \defineprocesscolor is the colour space check, can't that be dealt with using a key-value setting? Probably a little late to discuss this, but I also don't see why \definespotcolor got its own command. A simpler approach: If two arguments to \definecolor are provided you define a colour, if three arguments are provided you define a tint of a colour. Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________
