Glen Choo <chooglen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Problem inherited from the original, but I suspect that rephrasing >> "not available" to "missing" (or "does not exist") may make it >> easier to follow. >> ... > > The only change I'd suggest is to expand "missing" -> "missing or > unreadable". The original wording is "not available", which could be > interpreted to cover both cases. We'd obviously also have to amend > "not available or readable" accordingly. Probably. I wonder if we should document that we at least warn when a file we are expected to read exists but is not readable (instead of simply saying "is ignored"), but other than that I agree with you. > Thanks! Shall I apply your suggestions, or were you planning to apply > them yourself? Definitely not the latter ;-)
