> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:22 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
> To sum up:
>
> (1) you are somehow against changing the current implementation, eg
> erroring out on possibly misleading configurations, because you do not
> think it is really useful to help users in those cases.
>
> (2) you are not against improving the documentation, although you find it
> clear enough already, but you agree that some people could get confused.
>
> The attached patch v4 only improves the documentation so that it reflects
> what the implementation really does.
Thanks, it's definitely makes sense to propose documentation patch if there are
any concerns about how clear it is. For now I'm moving patch to the next CF.
> I think it too bad to leave out the user-friendly aspects of the patch,
> though.
Why then not split the original proposal into two patches, one to improve the
documentation, and another to make it more user friendly?
