Aditya Mahajan wrote:
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?
i've now changed the code so that in \placeformula[eq1]... \NC[+] the number is refered to as eq1 \placeformula[eq1]... \NC[eq2] here eq1 gets lost, while \placeformula... \NC[eq3] is the prefered way Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------