[NTG-context] \autoinsertnextspace regression / discrepancy, mkiv to lmtx

Hans Hagen j.hagen at freedom.nl
Thu Oct 27 09:54:34 CEST 2022


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
-----------------------------------------------------------------



More information about the ntg-context mailing list