On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 06:30:26AM +1000, Tim Cross wrote:
> [...] For example, in an
> interpreted language, you could have errors due to problems with the
> interpreter, you could have errors in the code or you could have a code
> block which legitimately
I will also chime in here to say that managing output streams and
errors for babel is a major new feature that I am interested in. The
issue, as Tim points out, is that there is a lot of complexity lurking
here due to the fact that certain languages have fundamentally
different capabilities and
James Powell writes:
> Error handling is important and hard to get right. Me, I prefer to
> treat every warning as an error (-Werror in gcc, "options(warn=2)" in
> R, etc). I want the system to grind to a halt at the least sign of
> trouble.
>
> When I write some nonsense into a
> On Aug 9, 2021, at 9:13 PM, James Powell wrote:
>
> Error handling is important and hard to get right. Me, I prefer to
> treat every warning as an error (-Werror in gcc, "options(warn=2)" in
> R, etc). I want the system to grind to a halt at the least sign of
> trouble.
If the
Error handling is important and hard to get right. Me, I prefer to
treat every warning as an error (-Werror in gcc, "options(warn=2)" in
R, etc). I want the system to grind to a halt at the least sign of
trouble.
When I write some nonsense into a code block as in this example:
