On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:33:44AM +0100, Edwin Leuven wrote: > as discussed in another thread, the problem was that only the 1st > argument got checked, and that was just an arbitrary one (the one > which just happened to be added first in the frontend code). which is > prone to errors as we saw. so it seems to me that vincent's fix is the > correct one.
Well, even if vincent's fix is correct, he himself is not correct. Q: Why are you reverting it? A: Because I'm right and you're wrong. End of discussion, begin to give vent to one's anger. Only later I noticed the other thread. -- Enrico
