\autoinsertnextspace regression / discrepancy, mkiv to lmtx
The following example produces different results when processed by LMTX and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV. \starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1\autoinsertnextspace \stoptexdefinition \tt \starttext \TEST{X} \emph{Y} \stoptext The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion). -- Rik
On 10/26/2022 1:52 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
The following example produces different results when processed by LMTX and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV.
\starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1\autoinsertnextspace \stoptexdefinition \tt \starttext \TEST{X} \emph{Y} \stoptext
The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion). more a side effect ... we lookahead and \emph is not some character
I made a variants that does abetter job on that \starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1% \autoinsertedspace % subtle name change \stoptexdefinition but you have to wait till we update, Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On 2022-10-26 07:43, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
On 10/26/2022 1:52 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
The following example produces different results when processed by LMTX and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV.
\starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1\autoinsertnextspace \stoptexdefinition \tt \starttext \TEST{X} \emph{Y} \stoptext
The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion). more a side effect ... we lookahead and \emph is not some character
I made a variants that does abetter job on that
\starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1% \autoinsertedspace % subtle name change \stoptexdefinition
but you have to wait till we update,
Hans
Thank you in advance for the upcoming fix. Can you tell us (me) why you chose to create a new macro, \autoinsertedspace, instead of changing the code for \autoinsertnextspace in LMTX? Do you see a circumstance under which the current LMTX behavior of \autoinsertnextspace is desirable or required? Will the new macro be available under MkIV? -- Rik
On 10/26/2022 3:35 PM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
On 2022-10-26 07:43, Hans Hagen via ntg-context wrote:
On 10/26/2022 1:52 AM, Rik Kabel via ntg-context wrote:
The following example produces different results when processed by LMTX and MkIV. In particular, a space between the X and Y is not auto-inserted by LMTX, while it is by MkIV.
\starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1\autoinsertnextspace \stoptexdefinition \tt \starttext \TEST{X} \emph{Y} \stoptext
The MkIV result is the correct result (in my opinion). more a side effect ... we lookahead and \emph is not some character
I made a variants that does abetter job on that
\starttexdefinition TEST #1 #1% \autoinsertedspace % subtle name change \stoptexdefinition
but you have to wait till we update,
Hans
Thank you in advance for the upcoming fix.
Can you tell us (me) why you chose to create a new macro, \autoinsertedspace, instead of changing the code for \autoinsertnextspace in LMTX? Do you see a circumstance under which the current LMTX behavior of \autoinsertnextspace is desirable or required?
compatibility .. it also uses a different mechanism for which that name suits better
Will the new macro be available under MkIV? I suppose I can do that if needed,
Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
participants (3)
-
Hans Hagen -
Rik Kabel -
Rik Kabel