On 1/24/2017 2:33 PM, j. van den hoff wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:15:08 +0100, Hans Hagen wrote:

thanks for the quick reply and sorry for my not being precise. correction/addition follows:

...

On 1/24/2017 11:33 AM, j. van den hoff wrote:

...

hi everybody,

after a 2 year hiatus I'm just giving `context' a second try (so, really not much experience so far).

I updated to the latest version (0.63) before proceeding.

0.63 what? luatex? then you need to check things as we're beyond 1.00 now

I was refering to the `context --version' output:

resolvers | trees | analyzing 'home:texmf' mtx-context | ConTeXt Process Management 0.63 mtx-context | mtx-context | main context file: path_to/context/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/mkiv/context.mkiv mtx-context | current version: 2017.01.17 17:37

I _was_ under the impression that this is current since I did an update and `current version' gives a date from last week. or that's what I believed would happen, when re-running `first-setup.sh': am I mistaken? if this is a stupid question I'd accept a RTFM answer ;-).

the context version is: 2017.01.17 17:37 (best also mention the reported luatex version in such cases) the 0.63 hardly changes as mtx-context hardly changes

...

...

two observations:

1. in a new document including assorted equations everything went fine until I tried something like

\startformula x = \left 1 + 2 \right \stopformula

\left( ... \right)

left and right take an argument that has to be some known open or close operator

yes, I know. sorry for the glitch. I _meant_

\startformula x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) \stopformula

and _that_ is what's still causes the `Undefined control sequence' (both, in the new as well as the two year old unmodified document) -- actually it is thus reported in the error message (in the previous mail, too):

"l.472 x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right )"

this just works here ... so can others confirm it? \starttext \startformula x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) \stopformula \stoptext

...

...

which caused an error:

8<------------------------------------------------------------------ ! Undefined control sequence

\strc_synonyms_insert_meaning ...urrentsynonymtag {#2}\fastsetup {\??simplel... \math_left ...ame \??mathleft \meaning \nexttoken \endcsname \expandafter \l... l.472 x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) 8<------------------------------------------------------------------

2. an old document (not modified these 2 years) does no longer compile due to apparently the same problem (not understanding `\left', `\right'.

question: my understanding is, that `context' supports "everything" out of the box (notably equations) and there is no need for explicit loading of additional packages? so `\left' etc. _should be defined (and it _used_ to work 2 years ago)? what am I missing?

thx, joerg

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:15:09 +0100, luigi scarso wrote:

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:

...

this just works here ... so can others confirm it?

\starttext

\startformula x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) \stopformula

\stoptext

no problem here with

This is LuaTeX, Version 1.0.2 (TeX Live 2017/dev) system commands enabled. system > ConTeXt ver: 2017.01.17 16:50 MKIV beta fmt: 2017.1.23 int: english/english

in fact, this minimal example works for me too. BUT adding those three lines (\startformula .... \stopformula) to my actual document makes compilation fail. no idea what's happening here. I will now try to reduce my original document to a hopefully minimal example triggering the described behaviour. any hints, where to look regarding possible reasons of the observed behavior would of course be appreciated.

-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

well after incrementally deleting most everything from my document I now seem to have a reproducible example: 8<-------------------------------------------- \definesynonyms[MySymbol][MySymbols][\meaning] \MySymbol [whaever] {this} { means } \starttext \startformula x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) \stopformula \stoptext 8<-------------------------------------------- the apparent "culprit" is the presence of the `\definesynonyms' stuff. without it the rest (identical to your minimal example) compiles. with it it does not... remember that I am really unexperienced with `context': at the time (2 years ago), when I first tried this, it worked. I now realize (after reading up on the `definesynonyms' syntax again ...) that in the definition a _command_ has to go into the third bracket. seemingly at the time I was just putting a placeholder `\meaning' there (never attempting to use it as a command acting on the explanatory text for that symbol definition but only wanting a glossary. the strange thing (for me) is that this worked just fine two years ago, now it does produce a very strange error as described. question is why. but replacing `\meaning' by `\infull' suffices to restore sane behaviour. while I understand, that I did something stupid (putting a non-existent command `\meaning' in the definition), I would have presumed that this might trigger an error at that place rather than making `\left (' suddenly an undefined control sequence. any explanation what is going on here would be greatly appreciated. On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:02:38 +0100, Hans Hagen wrote:

this just works here ... so can others confirm it? \starttext \startformula x = \left ( 1 + 2 \right ) \stopformula \stoptext

-- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/