On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
Aditya Mahajan wrote:
<--- On Mar 30, Taco Hoekwater wrote --->
* The broken eq reference (at least IMO this is a bug) \starttext \placeformula[eqn1] \startformula \startalign[n=1] a\\ \stopalign \stopformula See \in[eqn1] \stoptext
I am not sure that this is a bug. Infact, I am not behaviour is expected. \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign[n=1] a \\ b \\ \stopalign \stopformula What should \in[eqn1] refer to? The first eqn, the second, or both?
Both, perhaps. But it could as well take the first one, or the last. My rationale is: if there is a label given by the user, then referring to that should resolve into something that is a valid link. It is definately inconsistent to discard a supplied label because it's contents may be unresolvable.
I agree on that. The label must refer to something. However, explaining what it refers to can quickly get confusing. The numbering should remain consistent with or without the label. \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign \NC a \NC b \NR \NC c \NC d \NR[+] \stopalign \stopformula The first equation should not be numbered. But then this is something like the "ugly loose label" in latex. And what about \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign \NC a \NC b \NR \NC c \NC d \NR \stopalign \stopformula The numbering should be consistent with or without the label. Which means that there should be no numbering. What should the label refer to now? Aditya