For extra credit: The line number (and the current type of definition like
RMIL_MACROFILES) might reasonably be attached to each macro definition, perhaps
by masking to avoid changing rpmDefine() in the API.
Otherwise add additional int arguments to rpmDefine()
--
You are receiving this
Abusing the negative level macro definition as an index into files from which
definitions were read, with an associated file name table, as well as the
modest change to display the file name(s) where macros are defined, is likely
more useful than detecting errors while loading/defining a macro.
Well it only differs in that case if you have a file with an invalid macro and
add another which is not invalid. At which point a useless file becomes at
least partially useful.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
It just feels odd to me that the behavior of a file with just one macro is
different than a file with two macros. But don't mind me ;)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
If all definitions fail then the perhaps it's a misplaced file, or otherwise
something totally bogus. But if just one of many fails then that's more likely
a typo/thinko kind of error. I thought that was fairly obvious. To turn the
question around: why not?
--
You are receiving this because
That "return an error if all definitions fail" is pretty weird. What's the
rationale for that?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
