Hi, LeJacq, Jean Pierre wrote: > Two considerations: > > 1. N() can always be modified to provide an alternate implementation, > though I acknowledge that changing from throw semantics > would be problematic. For example, adding logging before the throw.
Isn't this exactly what Timothy proposes? Clearer separation of the two. > 2. N() is not the best choice for handling this to begin with. Agreed. Timothy proposed using "throw usage();" instead, which is according to these two requests, AFAICT. Regards Markus Wanner _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
