On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 11:00, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a patch along those lines. Yes, it's a little more code
> duplication, but I think it's worth it for the more detailed error.
> There was no previous regression test coverage of this case so I added
> some (all other test output is unaltered).

[finally getting back to this]

Hearing no objections, I have pushed and back-patched this.


Reply via email to