[tex-k] Bug report for the 2029 TeX tune-up - Error-message is expected but the text of the error-message is incorrect

Ulrich D i e z ud.usenetcorrespondence at web.de
Sat Jun 26 13:58:48 CEST 2021

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Berry" <karl at freefriends.org>
To: <ud.usenetcorrespondence at web.de>
Cc: <tex-k at tug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: [tex-k] Bug report for the 2029 TeX tune-up - Error-message is expected but the text of the error-message is incorrect

>     ! Processing the file ended while scanning definition of \foobar.
> I understand your suggestion. However, Knuth has consistently taken the
> position that when people do tricky things (like putting expandable
> material on the line after \endinput), they cannot expect perfect error
> messages (or, necessarily, any). There is no chance that he would
> complicate the code merely to issue a variant error message here. -k

Does adding the two words  "Processing the" to error-message-phrase
in question really complicate things?

The error-message-text

    ! Processing the file ended while scanning definition of \foobar.

is more general than the error-message text

    ! File ended while scanning definition of \foobar.

and could be raised both in situations where the end of the
file in question is reached and in situations where the reason for
ending the processing of the file is a different one, e.g.,  a
pending \endinput, which in my humble opinion is not that tricky
as soon as one has realized what is written in the TeXbook.

I suppose adjusting the phrase in the documentation, i.e., in the
TeXbook and in "TeX the program" might be more work than
adjusting it for the program itself. :->

Whether Knuth might be inclined to rectify things is not of interest
to me.

What is of interest to me is the circumstance of incorrectly classifying
behavior as "not a bug" instead of classifying it, e.g., as "something
not worth to rectify":

This way yo you are quietly passing the buck to me.

Fact is:

In the scenario I showed, the program delivers a clearly false
statement in the form of an error message:

The claim to have reached an end of file when this is not the
case is a false statement supplied by the program.

If the fact that a program delivers a false statement, although
a less sharp but non-false statement is easily possible, is not
one of the things that can be subsumed under the general term
"bug", then I humbly request a Knuth definition for this term.

Whether anyone fixes it or instead categorizes it as a
"bug for some reason not worth rectifying" (which would
probably not imply a claim that is ojectively false)  , I don't
The people here are doing volunteer work for free.
I have no right to expect anyone to do anything.

But I'm tired of being subtly played for a sucker:

By any reasonable understanding of the term "bug", it is
a bug. So I don't need to be tricked into the position of the
one who sees something wrong.

I consider the way A214 at
<https://tug.org/texmfbug/nobug.html#endinput> presents
things to be unserious:

First, it is not about the behavior of \endinput, but at most
about error messages related to it.  The headline should
emphasize the latter, not the former.

Secondly, these error messages are indeed "counter intuitive"
in the scenario I have shown. For the sake of honesty, this
"counter intuitive" could be narrowed down to "false" in this


More information about the tex-k mailing list.