For the sake of clarity.. * KaiGai Kohei (kai...@ak.jp.nec.com) wrote: > OK, it was too implementation-specific.
No, that wasn't the problem. There isn't an actual implementation yet
for it to be too-specific on. The problem is that proposing a change to
the catalog without figuring out what it'd actually be used for in an
overall solution is a waste of time.
> Please return to the categorization with 3-level that I mentioned at
> the previous message.
As Robert said, we're off in the weeds here. I'm not convinced that
we've got 3 levels, for starters. It could well be fewer, or more.
Let's stop making assumptions about what's OK and what's not OK.
> For built-in functions, the code should be reviewed to ensure it does not
> expose the given argument using error messages.
> Then, we can mark it as trusted.
One thing that I think *is* clear- removing useful information from
error messages is *not* going to be an acceptable "solution".
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
