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. Regards, Dean
