Broken Nightly (2012.07.10)
Hey Hans, Wolfgang, et al, The nightly for 2012.07.10 appears to be broken. When attempting to compile my book, I get the following. ! Argument of \PlaceSection has an extra }. <inserted text> \par <to be read again> } \strc_rendering_inject_text ...ameter \c!command } \ifx \p_command \empty \di... \strc_rendering_place_head_text ...ng_inject_text }\fi \strc_rendering_stop_... \strc_sectioning_handle ...dering_place_head_text \strc_sectioning_after_yes... l.8 \title{Contents at a Glance} E ? You want to edit file Makeup/Table_of_Contents.tex at line 8 https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~avaneya/avaneya/trunk/view/head:/Documentation... This is just a piece of advice from one programmer to another, but it might be useful if you use some kind of unit testing framework with ConTeXt since most of the nightlies it seems are usually broken for somebody. You just need some test cases, e.g. people's documents that draw on as many features as possible. -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
The subject of this ongoing string is not very informative and indeed slightly unpleasant considering the efforts that many contributors make towards the development of ConTeXt. The present message is not intended to start any sort of debate; it only represents a reaction to a latent feeling that I have for some time now... Alan
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:16 +0200, Alan BRASLAU wrote:
The subject of this ongoing string is not very informative and indeed slightly unpleasant considering the efforts that many contributors make towards the development of ConTeXt.
The present message is not intended to start any sort of debate; it only represents a reaction to a latent feeling that I have for some time now...
Alan
Hey Alan. I'm not sure what you mean. If you thought my post came off poorly, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't criticizing anyone. I was just pointing out that a recent nightly was broken. That happens all the time - including with my own projects. It isn't personal. -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
Am 13.07.2012 um 00:09 schrieb Kip Warner:
Hey Hans, Wolfgang, et al,
The nightly for 2012.07.10 appears to be broken. When attempting to compile my book, I get the following.
Use \define[2]\PlaceSection {…} or \unexpanded\def\PlaceSection#1#2% {…} in your environment file. Wolfgang
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:22 +0200, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Use
\define[2]\PlaceSection {}
or
\unexpanded\def\PlaceSection#1#2% {}
in your environment file.
Wolfgang
Thanks Wolfgang. As usual, your magic worked. =) -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:45:46PM -0700, Kip Warner wrote:
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:22 +0200, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Use
\define[2]\PlaceSection {}
or
\unexpanded\def\PlaceSection#1#2% {}
in your environment file.
Wolfgang
Thanks Wolfgang. As usual, your magic worked. =)
Thanks, I have not used \define or \unexpanded\def in my definitions of macros too, so I found this problem in my project too... -- Martin Bruchanov Skype : bruxytronics WWW : http://bruxy.regnet.cz/ GPG-Key : http://bruxy.regnet.cz/bruxy-gpg.key (0x8107ED53) Linked-In : http://www.linkedin.com/in/bruxy Google+ : http://gplus.to/BruXy
On 13-7-2012 00:09, Kip Warner wrote:
This is just a piece of advice from one programmer to another, but it might be useful if you use some kind of unit testing framework with ConTeXt since most of the nightlies it seems are usually broken for somebody. You just need some test cases, e.g. people's documents that draw on as many features as possible.
feel free to do the testing .. (there is an achive with test files but i have no time to run/check it each time) concerning 'broken' ... that's what you have with betas ... most recent changes concern reshuffling code, better namespace protection, cleanup and speedup, etc, all part of the mkii -> mkiv move the problem reported by you (as wolfgang already pointed out) relates to the fact that (from now on) such commands have to be defined unexpandable (due to a different way of checking them) .. also, some of these 'command' options will be (or are already) replaced by setups Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Hans Hagen
On 13-7-2012 00:09, Kip Warner wrote:
This is just a piece of advice from one programmer to another, but it
might be useful if you use some kind of unit testing framework with ConTeXt since most of the nightlies it seems are usually broken for somebody. You just need some test cases, e.g. people's documents that draw on as many features as possible.
feel free to do the testing .. (there is an achive with test files but i have no time to run/check it each time)
and with rsync rsync -avz rsync://contextgarden.net/standalone/current/context/test . -- luigi
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:49 +0200, luigi scarso wrote:
and with rsync rsync -avz rsync://contextgarden.net/standalone/current/context/test .
Thanks Luigi. I actually do test every new nightly and have been for several months now. -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 09:42 +0200, Hans Hagen wrote:
feel free to do the testing .. (there is an achive with test files but i have no time to run/check it each time)
I do test. I test every nightly that I can. My book is useful for that because it draws on a lot of frequently fragile features.
concerning 'broken' ... that's what you have with betas ... most recent changes concern reshuffling code, better namespace protection, cleanup and speedup, etc, all part of the mkii -> mkiv move
Ah I see.
the problem reported by you (as wolfgang already pointed out) relates to the fact that (from now on) such commands have to be defined unexpandable (due to a different way of checking them) .. also, some of these 'command' options will be (or are already) replaced by setups
Sorry, I'm a little lost. Are you referring to within the ConTeXt source or do you mean that users need to modify their typesetting commands they are using for their documents? -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
On 16-7-2012 07:32, Kip Warner wrote:
Sorry, I'm a little lost. Are you referring to within the ConTeXt source or do you mean that users need to modify their typesetting commands they are using for their documents?
only the occasional ones that hook into 'command=' ... they'd best be \unexpanded\def's Hans -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
Am 16.07.2012 um 15:37 schrieb Hans Hagen:
On 16-7-2012 07:32, Kip Warner wrote:
Sorry, I'm a little lost. Are you referring to within the ConTeXt source or do you mean that users need to modify their typesetting commands they are using for their documents?
only the occasional ones that hook into 'command=' ... they'd best be \unexpanded\def's
Or \define[<number>]\somecommand which creates also a protected command. Wolfgang
On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 18:00 +0200, Wolfgang Schuster wrote:
Or
\define[<number>]\somecommand
which creates also a protected command.
Right. Thanks. -- Kip Warner -- Software Engineer OpenPGP encrypted/signed mail preferred http://www.thevertigo.com
participants (6)
-
Alan BRASLAU -
Hans Hagen -
Kip Warner -
luigi scarso -
Martin Bruchanov -
Wolfgang Schuster