A general question. I use setupenumerations to define theorem-, lemma-, and definition-environments for my document. I realised that setupenumerations is overwriting keys that are set in setupitemize (and groups defined by defineitemgroup). ~~~snip~~~ \setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers] \starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~ vs. ~~~snip~~~ %\setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers] \starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~ This is unintuitive for me.. Is this expected behaviour??
Am 20.02.2014 um 14:45 schrieb Thomas Möbius
A general question. I use setupenumerations to define theorem-, lemma-, and definition-environments for my document. I realised that setupenumerations is overwriting keys that are set in setupitemize (and groups defined by defineitemgroup).
~~~snip~~~ \setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers]
\starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~
vs.
~~~snip~~~ %\setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers]
\starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~
This is unintuitive for me.. Is this expected behavior??
What is the problem, I can’t see a difference in the output of both examples? Wolfgang
2014-02-20 14:52 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Schuster
Am 20.02.2014 um 14:45 schrieb Thomas Möbius
: A general question. I use setupenumerations to define theorem-, lemma-, and definition-environments for my document. I realised that setupenumerations is overwriting keys that are set in setupitemize (and groups defined by defineitemgroup).
~~~snip~~~ \setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers]
\starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~
vs.
~~~snip~~~ %\setupenumerations [numberconversion=numbers]
\starttext \startitemize[a] \item Text Text \item Text Text \stopitemize \stoptext ~~~snip~~~
This is unintuitive for me.. Is this expected behavior??
What is the problem, I can’t see a difference in the output of both examples?
Wolfgang
Interesting.. In the first example I see 1. Text Text 2. Text Text in the second, I see a. Text Text b. Text Text I am using the context version from the Ubuntu package manager. % context --version mtx-context | ConTeXt Process Management 0.52 mtx-context | mtx-context | main context file: /usr/share/texmf/tex/contex t/base/context.mkiv mtx-context | current version: 2012.05.30 11:26 Probably, I should update.
participants (3)
-
Thomas Friedrich
-
Thomas Möbius
-
Wolfgang Schuster