On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 at 20:04:24 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > De: Carlos R. Mafra <[email protected]> > À: [email protected] > Envoyé: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:30:22 +0100 (CET) > Objet: Re: [PATCH 5/6] getstyle: Get rid of abortar() > > On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 at 18:10:16 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > [...] > > > On a side not, I think you meant "werror" and not "wwarning", as it > > > seems that the initial behaviour was to stop, and not to continue > > > anyway (and werror does not seem to try to quit by itself). > > > > Well, not finding the file is not that bad so I think a warning > > is ok; but I have no strong feelings. In any case we will exit anyway. > > Actually, I totally prefer a warning there too, but conceptually there's > something annoying me: > - warning means roughly "okay, I did almost what you asked but faced a few > unexpected things" > - error means roughly "I can't do what you ask me, but I'll continue anyway > to see how far I can go" > - fatal means roughly "I found an error, but I can't even go any further" > > So basically if you perform an "exit" in this function, that would mean > a "wfatal" because you stop where you are. As I agree this should only > be a warning, could I propose to replace that "exit" with just a > "return" so not only will the program continue, but it may also succeed > copying other files...
Fair enough. I'm wondering who actually sees these warnings. Nowadays even I start wmaker through a graphical login manager and I can't see any of those warnings. Back in the days of startx I would sometimes come back to the console to check whether wmaker was complaining about something, but now I miss those. Is there a way to see them? If not, isn't this something we should do something about? -- like writing those warnings to ~/GNUstep/warnings.txt or something? -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [email protected].
