Re: [NTG-context] Missing parinitskips in \normalizelinemode=0
Hi Hans, > i'll bypass that warnign when the mode is zero I saw that you made that change in the latest upload, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm still getting the same output: luatex warning > linebreak: list seems already prepared luatex warning > linebreak: [ leftinit | rightinit | leftfill | rigthfill ] expected nil Also, what's causing me issues isn't the warning but rather that tex.linebreak is returning nil instead of an info table as the second return value. > btw, you need to work with a copy of the list Now that you point that out, I'm actually surprised that that example worked at all. The real code does use a copy of the list though (and also uses the proper callback interfaces instead of "system.callbacks. permitoverloads") Thanks, -- Max ___ 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 ___
Re: [NTG-context] \autoinsertnextspace regression / discrepancy, mkiv to lmtx
On 2022-10-26 07:43, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
On 10/26/2022 1:52 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
The following example produces different results when processed by
LMTX and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not
auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV.
\starttexdefinition TEST #1
#1\autoinsertnextspace
\stoptexdefinition
\tt
\starttext
\TEST{X} \emph{Y}
\stoptext
The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion).
more a side effect ... we lookahead and \emph is not some character
I made a variants that does abetter job on that
\starttexdefinition TEST #1
#1%
\autoinsertedspace % subtle name change
\stoptexdefinition
but you have to wait till we update,
Hans
Thank you in advance for the upcoming fix.
Can you tell us (me) why you chose to create a new macro,
\autoinsertedspace, instead of changing the code for
\autoinsertnextspace in LMTX? Do you see a circumstance under which the
current LMTX behavior of \autoinsertnextspace is desirable or required?
Will the new macro be available under MkIV?
--
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
___
Re: [NTG-context] \autoinsertnextspace regression / discrepancy, mkiv to lmtx
On 10/26/2022 1:52 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
The following example produces different results when processed by LMTX
and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not
auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV.
\starttexdefinition TEST #1
#1\autoinsertnextspace
\stoptexdefinition
\tt
\starttext
\TEST{X} \emph{Y}
\stoptext
The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion).
more a side effect ... we lookahead and \emph is not some character
I made a variants that does abetter job on that
\starttexdefinition TEST #1
#1%
\autoinsertedspace % subtle name change
\stoptexdefinition
but you have to wait till we update,
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
-
___
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
___
