Re: Tables: missing multi-col/row syntax

[David Rogers <davidandrewrogers@gmail.com>]

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