Which one is better is certainly subjective :) Maybe we could get the old TeX-y behavior via a switch or the other way around?
Alan, allow me to disagree with your assertions, though. Here are a few reasons:
1) You could correct a spelling mistake on the prompt (as in original TeX), although this is rarely done these days.
2) You could use the --nonstopmode or --batchmode to not get the prompt, and not have the lingering background process (Mac bug?).
3) You could see a collection of errors which might help you in fixing them altogether without having to run context again and again finding one error at a time. (Same thing with compiling a C/C++ code, and getting a list of many errors at once.)
4) There are many "errors" and "warnings" that context does not stop on. You could perhaps claim moving on from those is also useless :) Just to give some examples: missing modules, fonts, glyphs in fonts, etc.
So let me rephrase my original question: Is this change in behavior intended? If so, is it possible to get the old behavior (specially for nonstopmode) via some switch?
Thanks a lot,
~~MHB
On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 23:11:17 -0400
Mohammad Hossein Bateni <bateni@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ConTeXt used to recover better from errors. Consider the following file:
>
> =============
> \xyz
> \abc
>
> \starttext
> HELLO
> \stoptext
> =============
>
> Running ConTeXt ver: 2019.03.21 21:39 MKIV beta fmt: 2019.3.26 int:
> english/english would catch both "Undefined control sequence" errors before
> exiting with the message "mtx-context | fatal error: return code:
> 256". (I either press enter to move to the next error, or I use the
> --nonstopmode option.)
>
> Now with ConTeXt ver: 2019.04.13 17:01 MKIV beta fmt: 2019.4.15 int:
> english/english, even when I do not supply the --nonstopmode option,
> ConTeXt exits abnormally with the same error message right after
> discovering the first undefined control sequence. The old "?" TeX prompt
> allowing once to fix the misspellings, etc. does not appear at all.
>
> Has some defaults changed? Is it possible to get the old behavior?
>
> Thanks,
> ~MHB
I much prefer the new behavior, for the previous prompt was pretty useless and there was little point going on without correcting an earlier error. Furthermore, the model would often leave a furtive process running in the background following a keyboard interrupt (especially on Mac OSX). The new process does not do this.
Alan