On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:12 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Keller, Jacob E" <jacob.e.keller@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I am going to re-submit this with an enum-style return. I am also
> > changing how we parse so that we can correctly report whether the sort
> > function or sort atom is incorrect.
>
> Oh, our mails crossed, I guess. As long as it will leave the door
> open for later enhancements for more context sensitive error
> diagnosis, I do not particularly mind a solution around enum.
Hmm. I looked at coding it this way, and it actually makes it less
sensitive than I would like. I'm not a fan of the extra "value"
parameter, but I do like a more proper error display, and indeed one
that is more precise.
I'll try to have a new series posted soon which takes these into
account.
Regards,
Jake
��.n��������+%������w��{.n��������n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�