Dear posse, The itemize environment has a strange feature/bug: --------------- \startitemize \item Here is some text \stopitemize % Here is some text that SHOULD NOT be indented --------------- produces the same indentation as ---------------- \startitemize \item Here is some text \stopitemize Here is some text that SHOULD be indented ---------------- and even more puzzling: ---------------- \startitemize \item Here is some text\par \stopitemize\par Here is some text that should REALLY be indented ---------------- Could someone please explain how I can get text skipping a line after the itemize environment to automatically indent without a manual \indent every time? Sorry if I'm clueless here:-) Thnx in advance Idris -- Dr. Idris S Hamid Department of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523
Monday, November 11, 2002 Idris S Hamid wrote: ISH> Dear posse, ISH> The itemize environment has a strange feature/bug: (This should answer your "quotation" question too, at least partly) All "blocks" have this bug; IIRC it comes from Hans preference of spacey "readable" sources; this means all \par tokens after a \stop are globbed, and (IIRC) a new paragraph is always started: thus the indentnext option *always* take place. IOW, you cannot have one of these blocks *within* a paragraph. Hans, am I right? Well, if I am, this is absolutely wrong. Presence or absence of \pars before and after should not be ignored, or at least should be made an option. My workaround for now is to use \nulls after \stop... commands, but this is somewhat clunky. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
At 10:31 PM 11/11/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Monday, November 11, 2002 Idris S Hamid wrote:
ISH> Dear posse,
ISH> The itemize environment has a strange feature/bug:
(This should answer your "quotation" question too, at least partly)
All "blocks" have this bug; IIRC it comes from Hans preference of spacey "readable" sources; this means all \par tokens after a \stop are globbed, and (IIRC) a new paragraph is always started: thus the indentnext option *always* take place. IOW, you cannot have one of these blocks *within* a paragraph.
Hans, am I right?
Well, if I am, this is absolutely wrong. Presence or absence of \pars before and after should not be ignored, or at least should be made an option. My workaround for now is to use \nulls after \stop... commands, but this is somewhat clunky.
first of all, we're not dealing with a bug, it's a feature; so, if some other behavior is wanted, it should be an option of extension to existing mechanisms, nog a replacement. there is one thing we should keep in mind: naive users are not always aware of tex's empty line == par, so this is why \start/\stop things are consistent in absense or presense of them; distinguishing between display and semi-display is therefore not that trivial, and the best option is separate environments, like \startquotation ... \stopquotation (or \startdquotation ... \stopdquotation for display quotation) versus \startpquotation ... \stoppquotation for an in-paragraph one (like we have with formulas, see core-mat.tex) that way, one knows what to expect, since it's clear from the coding, and not from a (forgotten, or accidental) empty line another option is to have a dedidated environment \startinparagraph ... \stopinparagraph or \startcontinue ... \stopcontinue which nills the surrounding whitespace and inhibits the next indent. (this should be not that hard to implement) Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH> first of all, we're not dealing with a bug, it's a feature; so, if some HH> other behavior is wanted, it should be an option of extension to existing HH> mechanisms, nog a replacement. HH> there is one thing we should keep in mind: naive users are not always aware HH> of tex's empty line == par, so this is why \start/\stop things are HH> consistent in absense or presense of them; HH> distinguishing between display and semi-display is therefore not that HH> trivial, and the best option is separate environments, like HH> \startquotation ... \stopquotation HH> (or \startdquotation ... \stopdquotation for display quotation) versus HH> \startpquotation ... \stoppquotation HH> for an in-paragraph one (like we have with formulas, see core-mat.tex) HH> that way, one knows what to expect, since it's clear from the coding, and HH> not from a (forgotten, or accidental) empty line HH> another option is to have a dedidated environment HH> \startinparagraph ... \stopinparagraph HH> or \startcontinue ... \stopcontinue HH> which nills the surrounding whitespace and inhibits the next indent. (this HH> should be not that hard to implement) This latter alternative sounds awfully 'redundant' (too much code for a simple thing); the first sounds somewhat better, but the best solution IMO is to have an option/conditional \obeypars or something like that. When true, empty lines after startstops denote paragraph and lack of empty lines denote "remaining in the same paragraph"; when false, current ConTeXt behaviour is kept. Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option (obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global \obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse). Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false (force false), default (behave according to the global setting). Does this sound sensible? -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option (obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global \obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false (force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
Does this sound sensible?
hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more control and suits today's way of coding Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote: HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option (obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global \obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false (force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
Does this sound sensible?
HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to skip the next \par or not ... HH> concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more HH> control and suits today's way of coding Awfully verbose. Wrist-heavy. Definitely not the way to go (btw that's the reason why I *hate* XML). It *requires* a tuned editor which will insert the code for you, to reach the same productivity level. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
At 03:08 PM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option (obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global \obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse).
Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false (force false), default (behave according to the global setting).
Does this sound sensible?
HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so
Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to skip the next \par or not ...
well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index commands look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'? Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to skip the next \par or not ...
HH> well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index commands HH> look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'? Uhm. Ok, let's get at it slowly. I don't know how it works internally, but regadless of this, the behaviour seems to be the same regardless of wether I leave an empty line after the \stop, or not (and also before the \start, or not). Do \starts and \stops automatically force a new paragraph all the time? -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
At 11:12 PM 11/12/2002 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote:
Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to skip the next \par or not ...
HH> well, the point is that no command, except fr sectioning and index commands HH> look ahead, so what excactly do you mean with 'skip the next par'?
Uhm. Ok, let's get at it slowly. I don't know how it works internally, but regadless of this, the behaviour seems to be the same regardless of wether I leave an empty line after the \stop, or not (and also before the \start, or not). Do \starts and \stops automatically force a new paragraph all the time?
only when before=\blank or so, but some commands do an \par themselves because they assume to be display material, Hans ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, November 13, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote: HH> only when before=\blank or so, but some commands do an \par themselves HH> because they assume to be display material, Are formulas and itemizations among these? -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
Ok, guys, what should I do? The really funny thing is that I need TWO \indents to get indentation after a \stopitemize: \startitemize \item Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text Here is some text \stopitemize %\indent \indent Here is some UNINDENTED text There has got to be a better way... Is there some typographical rule that says you have to start a new paragraph with no indentation after an itemized list? (Even so it should be easier to override...) Best Idris -- Dr. Idris S Hamid Department of Philosophy Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523
participants (3)
-
Giuseppe Bilotta -
Hans Hagen -
Idris S Hamid