Re: [NTG-context] closesymbol on same line as displayed formula

What has changed, Otared, is that Hans reimplemented inner workings of displayed formulas and in particular its alignment mechanisms, I suppose. A few months back he had issued warnings that certain things may break there. —Hossein On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Aditya Mahajan wrote:

...

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

...

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:

...

Hi,

I'm bringing up an old question on placing the qedsymbol, or closesymbol as it is also called. This was previously discussed in https://mailman.ntg.nl/pipermail/ntg-context/2014/079807.html and the purpose of this post is to ask if there is any solution to the problem now. Looking at the file below (output is attached), when the proof ends with a displayed formula, the closesymbol is located one row down. I want it to be (flushright) on the same line as the displayed formula.

If I use \placeclosesymbol the closesymbol is indeed put on the correct line, but not flushright.

Any ideas? I'm willing to use some command like \placeclosesymbol in the occations when the proof ends with a displayed formula.

/Mikael

\defineenumeration[proof][ number=no, text=Proof, headstyle={\it}, alternative=serried, width=fit, closesymbol={$\square$}, ]

\starttext

\startproof This is a short proof. \stopproof

\startproof This is another short proof, ending with the formula \startformula 1+1=2. \stopformula \stopproof

\startproof This is another short proof, ending with the formula \startformula 1+1=2.\placeclosesymbol \stopformula \stopproof

\startproof This is a rather advanced proof, ending with formulas \startformula \startalign \NC 1+1 \NC = 2,\NR \NC 2+2 \NC = 4.\NR \stopalign \stopformula \stopproof

\startproof This is a rather advanced proof, ending with formulas \startformula \startalign \NC 1+1 \NC = 2,\NR \NC 2+2 \NC = 4.\placeclosesymbol\NR \stopalign \stopformula \stopproof

\stoptext

Partly shameful bump.

Is it even possible? (It is using LaTeX and the \qedhere command)

Could I provide more information?

What is the expected output when the last formula has an equation number?

Aditya ____________________________________________________________

---

...

If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ____________________________________________________________

---

Thank you Aditya and Otared for showing some interest in this question.

I agree with you Aditya that a closesymbol could interfere with an equation number, and I think that one should try hard to reword the proof (or what it could be) to avoid that problem. In my current case it is calculus examples, and some of them naturally ends with a simple calculation, and none has an equation number.

As Otared points out, there was a working solution for a while (even though it may have been an ugly hack with eqno), so I guess it is somehow doable. And the closesymbol and closecommand keys are there... I just don't know how to code a working solution (say, not taking care of the problem with equation numbers)...

/Mikael ____________________________________________________________ _______________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/ listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ____________________________________________________________ _______________________