On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
WN wrote:
Hi,
I think I am using the latest context version
I cannot see any difference in the setup. I must be doing something basically wrong ???
There is a bug, and it is caused by the embedded \startalign environment. Minimal file:
\starttext \placeformula[eqn1] \startformula \startalign[n=1] a\\ \stopalign \stopformula See \in[eqn1] \stoptext
To WN, quick workaround, use \NR construct rather than \\. \starttext \placeformula \startformula \startalign[n=1] a \NR[eqn1] \stopalign \stopformula \stoptext
From what I understand, Hans said that this loose label was an ugly method to refer to equations. Consider \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign[n=1] eqn 1 \NR eqn 2 \NR \stopalign \stopformula
What should eq1 refer to? The first equation or the second? The "correct" way is to specify which one you want to be refered, so \placeformula \startformula \startalign[n=1] eqn 1 \NR[eq1] eqn 2 \NR \stopalign \stopformula And this does work correctly. Actually, there is another problem. Consider this \placeformula \startformula \startalign \NC ... \NC ... \NR \NC ... \NC ....\NR \NC ... \NC ... \NR \stopalign \stopformula vs \placeformula \startformula \startalign \NC ..\NC ... \NR \NC ..\NC ... \NR[+] \stopalign \stopformula The second construct should only number the second equation, and it does exactly that. The first does not number any equation, which is also the correct and expected behaviour. Now suppose that I want to number all equations. I am pretty sure that this used to work (can't check at the moment, as I have upgraded context) \placeformula[+] \startformula \startalign \NC ... \NC ... \NR \NC ... \NR ... \NR \stopalign \stopformula However, this is no longer working? How do I number all the equations in a multiline formula, without doing a \NR[+] at each line? Aditya