I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files now have generated this sort of error message:
lua error > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'lpegmatch'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in function 'strippedtag'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>
(...tail calls...)
Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my encoding or a problem in lua?
Alan
Alan Bowen mailto:bowenalan03@gmail.com 24. November 2015 um 20:47 I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files now have generated this sort of error message:
lua error > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'lpegmatch'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in function 'strippedtag'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>
(...tail calls...)
Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my encoding or a problem in lua?
What’s the content of line 62 (plus a few lines before/after) in your file c_Int_A002_Acerbi.tex?
Wolfgang
Hi, Wolfgang—
The lines from the file are:
\startextract <— LINE 43 \startparagraph \startlines . . \footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop depends on this textual detail, however.} % Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-} νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-} <— LINE 62 νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ % \footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».} % \Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04] ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-} % \footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the mistake is a haplography or a dittography.} % μορίουϲ. \stoplines \stopparagraph \stopextract <— LINE 80
Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.
Alan
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Wolfgang Schuster < schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Bowen bowenalan03@gmail.com 24. November 2015 um 20:47 I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files now have generated this sort of error message:
lua error > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'lpegmatch'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in function 'strippedtag'
.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>
(...tail calls...)
Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my encoding or a problem in lua?
What’s the content of line 62 (plus a few lines before/after) in your file c_Int_A002_Acerbi.tex?
Wolfgang
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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
Alan Bowen mailto:bowenalan03@gmail.com 25. November 2015 um 17:33 Hi, Wolfgang—
The lines from the file are:
\startextract <— LINE 43 \startparagraph \startlines . . \footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop depends on this textual detail, however.} % Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-} νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-} <— LINE 62 νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ % \footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».} % \Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04] ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-} % \footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the mistake is a haplography or a dittography.} % μορίουϲ. \stoplines \stopparagraph \stopextract <— LINE 80
Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.
Did you create a command with \definehighlight which is used in this part of the document?
Wolfgang
Hi, Wolfgang—
at line 34, I have \Query which is defined: \definehighlight[Query][color=magenta,style=bold]
There also instances of \emph (\definehighlight[emph][style=italic]) at lines 41 and 58.
Alan
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Wolfgang Schuster < schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Bowen bowenalan03@gmail.com 25. November 2015 um 17:33 Hi, Wolfgang—
The lines from the file are:
\startextract <— LINE 43 \startparagraph \startlines . . \footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop depends on this textual detail, however.} % Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-} νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-} <— LINE 62 νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ % \footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».} % \Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04] ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-} % \footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the mistake is a haplography or a dittography.} % μορίουϲ. \stoplines \stopparagraph \stopextract <— LINE 80
Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.
Did you create a command with \definehighlight which is used in this part of the document?
Wolfgang
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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net
Alan Bowen mailto:bowenalan03@gmail.com 29. November 2015 um 14:49 Hi, Wolfgang—
at line 34, I have \Query which is defined: \definehighlight[Query][color=magenta,style=bold]
There also instances of \emph (\definehighlight[emph][style=italic]) at lines 41 and 58.
You have create a minimal example (or provide your source offlist) because I wasn’t able to reproduce the error with your code snippet.
Wolfgang