Quoting Ralf Wildenhues ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Thanks for reporting this. I agree that double negation is suboptimal. > However, since the upper bound is chosen on rather pragmatic grounds > (we are pretty sure that five digits are portable), I'd rather not set > it in stone. In doubt we might raise the limit again. > > How come you saw this? Do you actually need higher limits?
Well, I was in the process of upgrading software for OpenBSD which still has an older 1.5.10 libtool. This together with Gnome 2.10 using a 1000 CURRENT number got it to bomb (this was before the number increase). This got me around to the error message, which I found suboptimal (1000 _is_ a positive number, so I wondered why it bailed. I little grep later I had the reason). This made me report the documentation error. > How about this patch (against HEAD, other branches similarly)? I have no problems about the patch. I would have preferred a separate function to predicate if a number was positive (it is after all used a number of places in the code), but how to crank this out of sh(1) so it is portable is beyond me at the moment (eating a character at a time and checking it seems reasonable, but it might be slow). I do like the idea of warning the user that it is not the whole space of positive numbers there are legal values. But we can come to a compromise, where the double-negation has been killed. This was after all the worst part of the error message. -- jlouis
