On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Rogers, Michael K
On Wed, Jul 04 2012, Hans Hagen wrote:
no, mixing this way is asking for troubles, if not now, than maybe in
On Jul 4, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Peter Münster wrote: the
future
just use \section
Yes, but isn't \startsection the recommended method for the future and needed for XML output?
XML documents should form a tree, so a structure like
\startA % <A> \startB % <B> \stopA % </A> \stopB % </B>
won't translate to XML.
Grouping in TeX follows the same restrictions, and \start... and \stop... behave like \begingroup and \endgroup. The \stop... is supposed to restore the state before the corresponding \start... (at least I assume so -- \endgroup works that way). One cannot stop A in the middle of B and return to the state before \startA without also stopping B. So one should put \stopB before \stopA, not after it.
It depends.
\starttext \long\def\startA#1\stopA{<\low{A}#1>\low{A}} \long\def\startB#1\stopB{<\low{B}#1>\low{B}} \startA textAA \startB textAB \stopA textBB \stopB \stoptext is ok (not the context way, btw: real code is more complex). The meaning of this can be content of \startA..\stopA = textAA ⋃ textAB content of \startB..\stopB = textAB ⋃ textBB \startA..\stopA ⋂ \startB..\stopB = textAB If we are describing programs, textAB can be the common code between the function A and B. -- luigi