database module: the first letter is lost

older
First letter lost possible cause:...

Michael Green

25 Jun 2014 25 Jun '14

5:21 p.m.

This appears to be the same as the problem Peter Münster found with the letter module \usemodule[database] \defineseparatedlist[MyTable] [separator=tab, before=\bTABLE,after=\eTABLE, first=\bTR,last=\eTR, left=\bTD,right=\eTD] \starttext The first letter of “Cell” is lost. \startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist With an extra return, “Cell” is intact. \startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist \stoptext

Show replies by date

Hans Hagen

25 Jun 25 Jun

7:44 p.m.

On 6/25/2014 7:21 PM, Michael Green wrote:

...

This appears to be the same as the problem Peter Münster found with the letter module

\usemodule[database]

\defineseparatedlist[MyTable] [separator=tab, before=\bTABLE,after=\eTABLE, first=\bTR,last=\eTR, left=\bTD,right=\eTD]

\starttext

The first letter of “Cell” is lost.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

With an extra return, “Cell” is intact.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable]

Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

\stoptext

in buff-ini.mkiv change this: \def\buff_start_indeed#1#2#3#4% {\normalexpanded{\buff_pickup{#2}{#3}{#4}{}{\buff_stop{#4}}\plusone}} probably needs some checking Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Wolfgang Schuster

9:13 p.m.

Am 25.06.2014 um 21:44 schrieb Hans Hagen :

...

On 6/25/2014 7:21 PM, Michael Green wrote:

...
This appears to be the same as the problem Peter Münster found with the letter module

\usemodule[database]

\defineseparatedlist[MyTable] [separator=tab, before=\bTABLE,after=\eTABLE, first=\bTR,last=\eTR, left=\bTD,right=\eTD]

\starttext

The first letter of “Cell” is lost.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

With an extra return, “Cell” is intact.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable]

Cell 1 Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

\stoptext

in buff-ini.mkiv change this:

\def\buff_start_indeed#1#2#3#4% {\normalexpanded{\buff_pickup{#2}{#3}{#4}{}{\buff_stop{#4}}\plusone}}

probably needs some checking

Adding \obeylines to \grabbufferdatadirect would also work \unexpanded\def\grabbufferdatadirect % name start stop {\begingroup % (6) + \obeylines \buff_start_indeed\empty} but I’m interested what’s the purpose of the fifth argument for \buff_start_indeed. Wolfgang

Hans Hagen

11:04 p.m.

On 6/25/2014 11:13 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

Am 25.06.2014 um 21:44 schrieb Hans Hagen mailto:pragma@wxs.nl>:

...
On 6/25/2014 7:21 PM, Michael Green wrote:

...
This appears to be the same as the problem Peter Münster found with the letter module

\usemodule[database]

\defineseparatedlist[MyTable] [separator=tab, before=\bTABLE,after=\eTABLE, first=\bTR,last=\eTR, left=\bTD,right=\eTD]

\starttext

The first letter of “Cell” is lost.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

With an extra return, “Cell” is intact.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable]

Cell 1Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

\stoptext

in buff-ini.mkiv change this:

\def\buff_start_indeed#1#2#3#4% {\normalexpanded{\buff_pickup{#2}{#3}{#4}{}{\buff_stop{#4}}\plusone}}

probably needs some checking

Adding \obeylines to \grabbufferdatadirect would also work

\unexpanded\def\grabbufferdatadirect % name start stop {\begingroup % (6) + \obeylines \buff_start_indeed\empty}

but I’m interested what’s the purpose of the fifth argument for \buff_start_indeed.

that was wrong; the pickup macro has a fifth argument (\plusone here) but goes unnoticed when you add \obeylines in which case the first 'obeyedline' ended up in #5 (i probably messed up when adding some feature but i would have to need to look at older code to see how/when) does it make sense? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Aditya Mahajan

11:12 p.m.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

...
but I’m interested what’s the purpose of the fifth argument for \buff_start_indeed.

that was wrong; the pickup macro has a fifth argument (\plusone here) but goes unnoticed when you add \obeylines in which case the first 'obeyedline' ended up in #5

(i probably messed up when adding some feature but i would have to need to look at older code to see how/when)

http://git.contextgarden.net/context/context/blame/master/tex/context/base/b... Aditya

Rik Kabel

11:19 p.m.

On 2014-06-25 19:04, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

On 6/25/2014 11:13 PM, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...
Am 25.06.2014 um 21:44 schrieb Hans Hagen mailto:pragma@wxs.nl>:

...
On 6/25/2014 7:21 PM, Michael Green wrote:

...
This appears to be the same as the problem Peter Münster found with the letter module

\usemodule[database]

\defineseparatedlist[MyTable] [separator=tab, before=\bTABLE,after=\eTABLE, first=\bTR,last=\eTR, left=\bTD,right=\eTD]

\starttext

The first letter of “Cell” is lost.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable] Cell 1Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

With an extra return, “Cell” is intact.

\startseparatedlist[MyTable]

Cell 1Cell 2 \stopseparatedlist

\stoptext

in buff-ini.mkiv change this:

\def\buff_start_indeed#1#2#3#4% {\normalexpanded{\buff_pickup{#2}{#3}{#4}{}{\buff_stop{#4}}\plusone}}

probably needs some checking

Adding \obeylines to \grabbufferdatadirect would also work

\unexpanded\def\grabbufferdatadirect % name start stop {\begingroup % (6) + \obeylines \buff_start_indeed\empty}

but I’m interested what’s the purpose of the fifth argument for \buff_start_indeed.

that was wrong; the pickup macro has a fifth argument (\plusone here) but goes unnoticed when you add \obeylines in which case the first 'obeyedline' ended up in #5

(i probably messed up when adding some feature but i would have to need to look at older code to see how/when)

does it make sense?

Hans

Adding \obeylines as Wolfgang indicated did not resolve the issue with my test case (shortened below), while removing #5 as Hans suggested does resolve it. % macros=mkvi \starttexdefinition unexpanded startTest \begingroup \dostartTest \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition dostartTest \grabbufferdata[Test][startTest][stopTest] \stoptexdefinition \starttexdefinition stopTest \getbufferdata[Test] \endgroup \stoptexdefinition \define\TestText {If you can read this the first token was not swallowed.} \starttext If another line does not follow this, there is a failure. \startTest\TestText\stopTest \stoptext As I wrote before, I do not have a way to more extensively test the other effects of the change. -- Rik Kabel

Aditya Mahajan

11:26 p.m.

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014, Rik Kabel wrote:

...

As I wrote before, I do not have a way to more extensively test the other effects of the change.

Since this affects grabbuffer, it will also affect the filter module. I have an extensive set of tests for the filter module (https://github.com/adityam/filter) that can be run by rake test_filter_mkiv However, the tests are not automatic (you have to visually inspect the PDF to see if everything is fine), require pandoc, and are rather simplistic. They are meant to check that nothing is broken with the filter module, not to check \grabbuffer. Nonetheless, it may be a good source of example. I am afraid that I don't have the time to test this right now. Aditya

Wolfgang Schuster

11:34 p.m.

Am 26.06.2014 um 01:19 schrieb Rik Kabel :

...

Adding \obeylines as Wolfgang indicated did not resolve the issue with my test case (shortened below), while removing #5 as Hans suggested does resolve it.

There is a difference between \startFOO … \stopFOO and \startFOO … \stopFOO because context gobbles only content in the same line as \startFOO when you add \obeylines and in the first case there is nothing which can be removed. Wolfgang

Rik Kabel

26 Jun 26 Jun

12:02 a.m.

On 2014-06-25 19:34, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:

...

Am 26.06.2014 um 01:19 schrieb Rik Kabel :

...
Adding \obeylines as Wolfgang indicated did not resolve the issue with my test case (shortened below), while removing #5 as Hans suggested does resolve it. There is a difference between

\startFOO … \stopFOO

and

\startFOO … \stopFOO

because context gobbles only content in the same line as \startFOO when you add \obeylines and in the first case there is nothing which can be removed.

Wolfgang Thank you, Wolfgang, for the explanation.

When I use \startTest \TestText \stopTest or \startTest \TestText\stopTest it does indeed work with the obeylines fix. It fails on the one-line version and also on \startTest\TestText \stopTest I have no problem using the multi-line versions. I only reduced it to a single line in preparing the MWE. I have, however, seen such one-line incantations in other examples on the list and possibly in the wiki. I do not recall who wrote them. I will now leave this to the developers to handle as they see best. -- Rik

3832

Age (days ago)

3833

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

8 comments

5 participants

participants (5)

Aditya Mahajan
Hans Hagen
Michael Green
Rik Kabel
Wolfgang Schuster