On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 08:21:53AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:13:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Atsushi SAKAI wrote: > > >Hi, Dan > > > > > >Then This kind of Warning is acceptable? > > > > I don't have a problem with this sort of warning. Anyone else...? > > Hum, why not, though if we start adding warnings, then I would > add a vshWarning function, inspired from vshError, and allow a --nowarning > flag to avoid them. It's okay to be a bit pedantic, as long as the user > has a way around if he knows what he's doing. Personally I'm against adding a warning for the same reasons as I'm against making it a hard error. The existing behaviour is standard behaviour of all UNIX command line tools. If the flag requires an argument no other tool tries to second guess whether the value supplied is bogus or not, because it will fundamentally always be a *guess*. Erroring, or printing warnings about things you're guessing might be wrong is just an annoyance Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list