TeX - ! Extra alignment tab has been changed to \cr

Carlos linguafalsa at gmail.com
Tue Jul 9 16:07:21 CEST 2019

David do you think - I mean, honestly - that I haven't seen the &'s?

Do you mind checking the first test file again - which I DID send -
contrary to what you just said that I still need to provide one

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:57 AM David Carlisle <d.p.carlisle at gmail.com>

> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 14:34, Carlos <linguafalsa at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > David Carlisle's recently had a request in which he asked me to stop
> this because quote
> >
> > No please stop this, you clearly have no idea how to make a bug report
> > that anyone can act on.
> >
> > Endquote
> >
> offlist
> Sigh. It is not normally considered polite to post emails in public.
> but whatever.
> I'd taken things off list to try to help you phrase an error report
> that could be assessed to see if there was a bug to be fixed.
> Your message was the text below, do you really think there is
> _anything_ there that anyone could act upon?
> In the latest message you say
> > I always thought that the error is in itself an error
> That is the fundamental problem: for some reason you are not seeing
> that the error is just raised when there is a user error in the
> document and you have too many & in a row.
> There is no bug: an error is raised because the document has a syntax
> error.
> David
> ---
> The reason why I find the error message far from informative is
> because as long as it prevents compiling the file successfully is
> non-informative. And the reason as to why I find the implementation
> not to be correct, is sipmly because even by having an informative
> file as you said earlier - then that compilation is also read and
> compiled accordingly. You might call me Stubborn, but what good does
> it do to read an informative message if the implementation is
> incorrect. I'd rather read a non-informative message as long as the
> compilation matches somewhow the outcome.
> I mean (looking sideways now in astonishment), let's have a scenario in
> where
> you gradually start modifying macros and definitions around to break the
> entire
> TeX infrastructure on the planet with informative messages during
> compilation (
> I know it sounds far-fetched, but this is just an exapmle for crying out
> loud),
> and on the other hand, these informative messages are deemed quite
> informative
> and with good intention,  especially coming from someone like you who's
> been
> involved with the project for such a long time. Then, shortly after these
> modifications take effect, a few people start asking you what those
> modifications you committed were all about, and you start telling them that
> you'd like to educate the public at large about the nooks and crannies of
> TeX
> in general. I'm sure enough though, that even by taking into account that
> you're a mathematician at heart, but so are a great many users who in turn,
> will start asking you further questions about the changes, so your
> informative
> end goal is not going to be taking too serious for long, before your
> faculties
> that drove you to do such a thing are called into question in the process.
> And
> unless, unless everyone else follows course, and loses the faculties at the
> same pace than you have
> - an unlikely event though - your informative end goal is out the window.
> This is akin - in a silly way though - to be stranded on a desert with no
> goods
> whatsoever and coming across a sign that reads Water Ahead. The message
> reads
> that there must be water somewhere. The message is thus an informative
> message.
> Then one keeps walking and walking and after so many kilometers there's
> another
> sign that reads pretty much along the same lines than the previous one. It
> turns out that the information may have been correct all along, but the
> distance to travel to get to where the water is at, wasn't specified, so
> by the
> time one gets anywhere close to where the water is, one is completely
> drained
> and dehydrated. Then the information is as irrelevant as not being able to
> find
> water in the first place, even though the message was nonetheless correct
> to
> point out that the water was somewhere. So yes, most people will choose
> water
> over a sign, regardless how informative that sign is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/attachments/20190709/a9d418bd/attachment.html>

More information about the texhax mailing list