On 1/17/2017 8:27 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
On 01/17/2017 08:23 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 1/17/2017 8:13 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
On 01/15/2017 05:19 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
Hi,
the next beta has additional keywords for texdefinitions:
\starttext
% [spaces|nospaces] [global] [unexpanded] [expanded]
On 1/17/2017 8:13 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
Bump
On 01/09/2017 01:49 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
Dear list,
I cannot seem to find the documentation for the parameters which you can set in
the first line of the document. From an example I found that you can select
the engine this way.
% engine=luaj
On 01/17/2017 08:23 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 1/17/2017 8:13 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
>> On 01/15/2017 05:19 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> the next beta has additional keywords for texdefinitions:
>>>
>>> \starttext
>>>
>>> % [spaces|nospaces] [global] [unexpanded] [expanded] [..argument] cs
On 1/17/2017 8:13 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
On 01/15/2017 05:19 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
Hi,
the next beta has additional keywords for texdefinitions:
\starttext
% [spaces|nospaces] [global] [unexpanded] [expanded] [..argument] csname
\starttexdefinition unexpanded doubleempty whatever [#1][#2]#3
Bump
On 01/09/2017 01:49 PM, Henri Menke wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I cannot seem to find the documentation for the parameters which you can set
> in the first line of the document. From an example I found that you can
> select the engine this way.
>
> % engine=luajittex
> \starttext
> Hello Wor
On 01/15/2017 05:19 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the next beta has additional keywords for texdefinitions:
>
> \starttext
>
> % [spaces|nospaces] [global] [unexpanded] [expanded] [..argument] csname
>
> \starttexdefinition unexpanded doubleempty whatever [#1][#2]#3
Is only the outer level \
On 1/16/2017 8:31 PM, Sergey Slyusarev wrote:
the (subtle) difference between the two [*MPinclusions and
*/MPinitializations/] is not a bug but a feature
If I understood correctly, *MPinitializations affects everything and can't be
assigned to a specific instance (or can it?),
in some cases (
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 1/16/2017 11:27 PM, Jeong Dal wrote:
>
>> If I remove either “%” or the formula, then the output looks fine.
>
>
> indeed, some subtle end-par-too-late-then-and-grouping issue
>
> Hans
>
> -