On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:46 PM, Aditya Mahajan <adityam@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Mikael P. Sundqvist wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Mikael P. Sundqvist <mickep@gmail.com>
>> 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
___________________________________________________________________________________