On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:08 AM, Georg Baum <georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de> wrote: > 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.
I see what you mean. I agree it looks awkward but I think that's the point. I guess I was preferring an error because on the terminal we will exit with an error so it seems more consistent. Also, we are reporting a LaTeX error, not a LaTeX warning, so it seems consistent from that point of view also. > 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. I agree. >> 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. I agree. Scott
