Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes: > On 03/13/2017 01:23 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Results in a more precise error location, but the real reason is >>> emptying out check_docs() step by step. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> >> Perhaps we should simply drop this error condition. Are empty sections >> this a mistake users make accidentally? > > Parse error; did you mean "empty sections _like_ this"?
Yes. > I'm okay with keeping the error; especially if we can't guarantee that > the generator copes gracefully with an empty section (different than an > omitted section). We'd have to verify it does. > On the other hand, even if we remove the error, > you're probably right that anyone proposing a patch for incorporation > that adds an empty section will have to explain themselves, whether or > not the parser flagged it, and if the error is cheap to maintain in the > parser, then it saves some review cycles. The patch adds two methods and changes three existing ones just to catch empty sections. I can't help to ask: why bother?
