n Monday 23 of June 2014 21:20:28 Vladimir A. Pavlov wrote: > How can we solve this? AFAIU you suggest something like reusing > --ignore-failed-read for the feature in question (correct me if I'm wrong).
Previously, I was thinking about something like that ^^. > But --ignore-failed-read is not exactly what I mean because: > 1. it outputs a warning meaning "something unexpected happens": It could for extraction also. > 2. according to the sources it means ignoring any read errors, not > only "existance" ones, That could behave the same also for extraction, if there are some non-fatal errors. > On the contrary, the suggested --ignore-missing suggests that: > 1. missing member is expected so no warning is necessary when this > happens, You can use fine-grained --warning configuration. > 2. if a member exists but cannot be processed for some other reason, > an error must still be returned. I can see ^^ that --ignore-failed-read does not fully meet your expectations for semantic. Pavel > [...]
