On 06/17/2015 07:40 AM, Jan Heylen wrote:
What I also wanted to say is that the original change is most probably not the issue, it just triggers an underlying issue...
Yeah, the issue were elsewhere. Thanks for pointing in the right direction!
My 5 cents in solving it: * It is not the first time I was thinking this: a for loop over a an object that is a NoneType should not go wrong in this way.
I disagree. I think iteration over None should fail. It is a serious type error and the sooner that can be caught, the better.
/Mads _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list kallithea-general@sfconservancy.org http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
