Robert Collins wrote: > On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 08:22, Max Bowsher wrote: >> Robert Collins wrote: >>> IDS_MISSING_LOG should be "No log was in use", not "setup.log.full". >>> It'll be ugly in the output, but at least accurate. >> >> "Check No log was in use for details." >> That's worse than what we have in CVS now. > > No it's not, because the current setup code *always* uses a log file > of the appropriate level. It's a fallback to catch future changes.
Well, at least make it "<no log was in use>" (with the brackets) to make the message easier to read. >> How about: > > No. I like Igors approach better. > For yours, we end up with duplicate resources : you should split the > 'installation incomplete' and the log to check into two separate > messages. Then you have to tangle with temporary buffers to combine them. > Secondly, you've still got getFile unrenamed. Let me clarify this > point: > we have a structure for each file we are logging to. getFile should > return one of those structures - not the name of the file. However, as > we only care about the name today, getFileName will both not collide > with getFile, and be clear what it does from the header. Sure, I wasn't attempting to address this issue. > Lastly we should be looking at how we pull conditionals out of > LogFile, > not inserting them. I can't see how else to acheive the result I intended without major restructuring. Max.