demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Is this something you think should be fixed? I would give it a go if > there was some direction on what it should do in this case. Just error > early and produce no output? I do not mind if the error case gets changed to behave differently, as long as the updated behaviour is something everybody thinks an improvement over the current behaviour. I do not offhand know what the "fixed" behaviour should be. I do not mind if nothing changed and documentation gets updated to reduce end-user confusion, either. Thanks.
