Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax

[David Rogers]

TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> David Rogers <davidandrewrogers@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > IMO this can (and definitely should) be regarded as a purely 
> > cosmetic problem,
> > to be resolved by purely cosmetic methods. I think the idea 
> > that each table cell
> > is exactly one unit of information (and can’t be a collection 
> > or array of units
> > of information) is more important than this issue.
> >
> > In other words, I think it’s better to ridiculously overload 
> > fontification and
> > output formatting, than to sacrifice the main logic of how 
> > tables currently
> > work. I just don’t believe that it could be worth it.
>
> The appearance of the tables is purely cosmetic ... however when 
> one
> ends up maintaining three copies of the same table, I don't 
> think that
> dismissing it offhand as a "cosmetic problem" is a productive 
> approach.

I’m not using the word in a dismissive way; I just think fixing 
the problem “head-on“, solving a display problem by display 
solutions, is better than disruptively (and permanently) changing 
the logic in order to improve the display.

--
David Rogers