Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Georg Baum > <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: >> Enrico Forestieri wrote: >> >>> My vote is for a warning and an output produced in any case. >>> If latex produces an output, that output has to be shown, IMO. >>> Having the possibility of looking at the output may be of great >>> help to pinpoint problems. >> >> This is a good argument actually. Then we should produce a strong >> warning, > > Why do you prefer a strong warning versus an error? Do you agree that > with command line export we should exit with error?
With "strong warning" I wanted to say that the message should make it very clear that the resulting PDF should not be trusted, even if it looks OK at first glance. Whether it is called warning or error is more a matter of taste. To me it looks awkward to give an error message and then show the result nevertheless, but I have no strong opinion on this. The command line export should exit with error in this case, otherwise it would not be possible to detect that something went wrong. This would also be consistent with the TeX compiler itself. > OK. Does anyone object to showing the PDF if there is an error during > compilation? I think this should be consistent for all conversions: If the PDF is shown despite of LaTeX errorsv then it should also be shown if another converter fails, but produces output, e.g. ps2pdf. Georg
