Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >It's different because we know why we need that one: we understand the
> >cause of the behavior and we therefore can have some confidence that the
> >kluge will fix it (or not, as the case may be). I have zero confidence
> >in looping five times around an "ln" call.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Even if we don't do that can we *please* put in something that detects
> the error, and tells the user what they will have to do to fix it?
> Failing in a situation which we know we can detect and not telling the
> user is intolerable, IMNSHO.
Agreed. At a minium we have to throw an error and tell them to run it
again.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
