Re: [leafnode-list] Still fighting with delaybody mode

[Matthias Andree <ma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jürgen Salk schrieb am Dienstag, den 30. Januar 2001:

> Although I strongly agree with you (and Matthias) in that 
> point, it should be clear to both of you that this trivial
> patch was by no means supposed to be an enhancement in 
> leafnode's general way of error handling. 

No, but if a "bug fix", even if it works for you, introduces a new bug
in a different place, what's the gain?

> In my understanding, this problem has to be tackled and 
> solved elsewhere on a more general basis.

No, your patch can trivially check for 0 and have the function itself
return a failure. Of course, other parts of leafnode need to be fixed,
but interim bug fixes are generally causing more troubles in the long
run. You patch here, another one patches there, and in the end,
everything breaks.

This is no personal offense, it's just a long way to say "If you fix it,
fix it correctly right away."

-- 
leafnode-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- mailing list for leafnode
To unsubscribe, send mail with "unsubscribe" in the subject to the list