Eric Abrahamsen <e...@ericabrahamsen.net> writes: > Looking over the code, I'm inclined to agree with Lars-Johan here: there > isn't really any need to halt the process, what's important is that the > user be made aware of the failure.
I agree. > Allow me to re-introduce my suggestion of using warnings! It's looking > better and better the more I consider it. `delay-warning' is just what > we want: it puts messages in the hopper, which aren't displayed until > the current command is completely finished, instead of messages > clobbering each other and getting buried. It has its own private buffer, > keeping information separate. There are plenty of user-facing knobs, and > facilities for hiding or silencing the warnings. I'm not sure I want to be popping up a buffer at the user for network errors and the like -- it's expected that a news reader will have some network problems, and putting up a buffer about it isn't very helpful. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
