dev-context

Download

dev-context@ntg.nl

April 2025

5 participants
2 discussions

Interest in an IEEE Bibliography Style?
by Jai Flack 04 May '25

04 May '25

Greetings everyone! First of all, thank you for the glorious software that is ConTeXt. Is there any interest in pulling a complete IEEE bibliography style into the ConTeXt tree (or even just as a module)? I currently have an IEEE bibliography style that is roughly 80% complete for my own uses but I am more than willing to complete it (or as close as one can be to complete with the number of inconsistencies in the reference guide) if anyone is interested in the result. Thanks. Kind regards, Jai

4 8

Re: LuaMetaTeX accepts `;` as part of `\numexpr`, which breaks LaTeX3
by Hans Hagen 30 Apr '25

30 Apr '25

On 11/8/2024 9:53 AM, Joseph Wright wrote: > Hello both, > > On 06/11/2024 15:28, Hans Hagen wrote: >> On 11/6/2024 12:37 PM, Vítek Starý Novotný wrote: >>>> Anyway, today I'm not in the mood to ponder semi colons, as it's the >>>> least of my worries, >>> >>> I am very sorry to bother you and other ConTeXt devs with this. If it >>> makes it feel any better, the LaTeX folks seem equally annoyed with me. >>> >>>> I'm not sure what "just %" means here. >>> >>> These were Joseph Wright's words. I assume Joseph was referring to the >>> fact that in e-TeX and LuaTeX, including a comment after a `\numexpr` >>> causes the comment to be ignored by TeX, similarly to how in LuaLaTeX, >>> including a semicolon causes parts of the following text to be ignored. > > It's not a comment - it's that the standard e-TeX implementation for > \numexpr only accept a very limited number of characters, and any > characters that are non-expandable and not in that set are treated as > end-of-expression. sure, that's what i thought but it's good to have that thread fixed >> Well, that's just numexpr then, but how about: >> >> \def\fool{\hskip10pt plus 0pt} >> >> oeps \fool me >> >> oeps \fool minus me >> >> This whole lookahead scanning is fragile by design and just like one >> should define >> >> \def\fool{\hskip10pt plus 0pt\relax} > > Most of the time I agree, but \relax is a lot longer than (say) ; and if > you are writing a complex parser that can be handy. > > [In the end, if ; stays as part of the extended \numexpr syntax for > LuaMetaTeX, at some stage I will have to re-work the code causing the > issue here to use another token in place of ; - \relax (in our case > \scan_stop:) really is a bit long, so probably something like @ is the > viable change.] sure, but this expl stuff si pretty verbose and long winding anyway (or that's what i remember from some BT presentation) >> one should also make sure an expression doesn't scan ahead, if only >> because it will expand whats coming next; basically \relax or matching >> () should have been mandate and it's a design flaw. > > Arguably yes but e-TeX was finalised in 1999 - that was an discussion > for a previous millennium (at least from a plain/LaTeX point of view) :) as much of tex .. >> As mentioned there, we also cleaned up some function names (or moved >> some to another namespace); there's a reason why luatex was frozen and >> luametatex was the follow up. > > Of course - but one day one might imagine LuaMetaTeX will more something > that makes sense for non-ConTeXt users too. (Plain and OPTeX as well as > LaTeX, I imagine.) i can add \etexexprmode=1 that ignores : and ; operations (not much overhead) as long as it doesn't trigger all kind of "can you also do this or that" demands to make < 1999 inspired code happy) if course \etexexprmode defaults to zero 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------

4 9