Hello Mari,
I can see two ways:
1. Enclose each table into \bgroup ... \egroup scope, so all \setupTABLE will be treated local (table_test.mkiv).
2. Perform all setups right after \bTABLE (table_test2.mkiv). This is not applicable in all cases (e.g. \bTABLE[width=\textwidth] must be done here, not later) but in you case - you just setup specific columns and row, which can be done after \bTABLE safely. I deduce that each \bTABLE .... \eTABLE creates a group, so all initializations done within remain local.
See my attempts.
Best regards,
Lukas
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:25:03 +0200, Mari Voipio
Hello!
I have a bit of a table mystery. It seems that the setups of an earlier table interfere with the table coming after it (in the real thing there's text between the tables, but the behaviour is the same). Each table looks fine by itself, but if I compile a file with both, the second one looks weird. What is it that I don't see or understand?
And yes, the tables really need to look like that. I'm recreating from a pdf a document that is probably made with Word and this is how they've done their tables in the original.
I admit that my ConTeXt version isn't exactly the newest available, it is dated 2015.02.03. If the combination of tables works in newer versions, I'll update, otherwise I'm not keen to fiddle with a working combo.
As always, I'll be grateful for any help I can get,
Mari
-- Ing. Lukáš Procházka | mailto:LPr@pontex.cz Pontex s. r. o. | mailto:pontex@pontex.cz | http://www.pontex.cz Bezová 1658 147 14 Praha 4 Tel: +420 241 096 751 Fax: +420 244 461 038