# [NTG-context] Question regarding context's module defintion

Hans Hagen pragma at wxs.nl
Fri Jun 9 08:52:51 CEST 2006

Aditya Mahajan wrote:
> Are users supposed to use %D kind of remarks to comment their own
> environment files? I am finding it a bit strange to work with. Does
>
well, it has been so for a long time; originally there were also %S
lines for the formal command definitions

anyhow, the %D is used to signal text that wil be typeset in a
'documentation run'

in the editor that i use, i can remove/add %D's on a selection, so it's
no real burden
> one have to leave a blank line after a %D line for that line to
> appear?
>
no, but it's just that i like a spacy layout; if it does not work, then
there is a bug in ctxtools
> Consider the test file
> %D \module
> %D  [file=test.tex,
> %D   version=0.0,
> %D   title=Test File,
> %D   subtitle=Blah blah,
> %D   date=\currentdate]
>
>
> %D Explaination for the next macro does not work
> \def\test{test}
>
> %D \macros{test}
> %D Neither does this.
> \def\test{test}
>
> %D Leaving a blank space also works
>
> \def\test{test}
>
> -----------------------
>
> and look at the output of texmfstart texexec --modules test.tex. Why
> are the first two macro definitions not in the pdf?
>

in ctxtools.rb, locate:

inlocaldocument = indocument
inlocaldocument = false # else first
line skipped when not empty

please test all kind of variants (there most have been a reason for
this, so it may as well be a bug related to translating from perl to ruby)

Hans

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