* Jesper Louis Andersen wrote on Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:56:33PM CET: > Quoting Ralf Wildenhues ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > 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.
OK. I've applied my wording (without the `small') to all branches. Regards, Ralf
