On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Marco Patzer wrote:
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.
Its time for a `simplecolor` module and a `\definesimplecolor` command :)
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
___________________________________________________________________________________
