On 07/29/10 02:26, Mike Frysinger wrote: > i'm ok with a warning about the dir not existing (i.e. errno == ENOENT) and > so > it'd skip it, but the fatal abort is obnoxious. if it were some other reason > (e.g. errno == EPERM), then i'm also ok with it aborting. this is what many > other common projects such as gcc do with unreadable include paths. > > i think these conditions would satisfy everyone ?
Looks reasonable, although I'm not convinced that typo-detection is a worthwhile goal. Thanks all. behdad
