Hallo, I have to typeset a division and have two diverent solutions but they both have problems. %--------------------------------------------------------------------- \starttext {\setuptables[rulethickness=0.05em,distance=small] \starttable[s0|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|] \NC\NC 1\NC 1\NC 0\NC 0\NC 1\NC 1\NC :\NC 1\NC 1\NC = \NC 1\NC 0\NC 0 \NC 0 \NC 1\NC\AR \NC\NC 1\NC 1\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \DC \DL[2] \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DR \NC\NC \NC 0\NC 0\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \NC\NC \NC 0\NC 0\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \DC\DC \DL[2] \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DR \NC\NC \NC \NC 0\NC 0\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \NC\NC \NC \NC 0\NC 0\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \DC\DC\DC \DL[2] \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DR \NC\NC \NC \NC \NC 0\NC 1\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \NC\NC \NC \NC \NC 0\NC 0\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \DC\DC\DC\DC \DL[2] \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DR \NC\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC 1\NC 1\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \NC\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC 1\NC 1\NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC \NC\AR \DC\DC\DC\DC \DC \DL[2]\DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DC \DR \NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC 0\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\NC\AR \stoptable} \setuplines[style=type] \startlines 110011:11=10001 11 -- ~00 ~00 ~-- ~~00 ~~00 ~~-- ~~~01 ~~~00 ~~~-- ~~~~11 ~~~~11 ~~~~-- ~~~~~0 \stoplines \stoptext %--------------------------------------------------------------------- In both examples there is a far to big distance between the lines and the upper digits. But the interline distance as a whole could be smaller. The simulation of a line with '--' in the second example is unsatisfying. Are there some improvments? Or, is there an idea for a better approach? Wolfgang