Hi! I personally think that the behavior of not responding at all is okay since this is for complementing the no-reply mode but you do have a point about the relationship with getq...
Here's a thought, could we separate the set commands? Cheers, Toru On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Dustin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I wrote a bunch of tests for Trond's new basket of quiet commands, > verifying that they all work as expected. > > However, I don't think the semantics are correct. In particular, > this seems to behave differently from the getq command already > established. > > getq was defined to not be quiet in all cases, but only > uninteresting cases. > > The new commands are defined to never respond under any > circumstance. > > Consider the case of setq: In almost every case, you can just > assume it makes it, but the error cases can be most interesting. This > would give us the ability to create a bulk set operation to complement > the bulk get operation. This should perform quite well, and without > compromising error detection (from CAS or otherwise). >
