On 1/10/23 12:10 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 07:30:37AM +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> On 1/9/23 5:16 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> It seems consistent with other error cases to return straight away, but
>>> I'm not following the second part, can you explain more? An 'N'
>>> followed by whitespace should be caught and treated as an error now (as
>>> desired & expected).
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion. It is treated as an error now. I was referring to my
>> other approach were it would not be caught. I also found another case that
>> would not be
>> caught by my proposal (an 'N' at the end of the string). Hence all good.
>> Your approach
>> is the correct and better one.
>
> Ah, great, thanks for looking at it! Any chance of a +1 for the 2.4
> backport? Just need one more vote :)
r1906537
Regards
Rüdiger
