----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Luter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "MP3 encoders development list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:12 AM Subject: [mp3encoder] Lame --ignore-errors option
> So anyway, I haven't gotten a reply to my last email. > > My question is this: > > I'm going to write a patch for lame to either bomb (with an appropriate > error message) on any tag errors (genre, year, etc). Or, if > --ignore-errors (or whatever you'd like it called) is specified, ignore > said errors and choose a default. I can still warn the user, unless the > --quiet option is also present. > > But my question is whether you all will accept the patch (in principle)? I've been following this discussion (quietly, since I'm not yet a skilled enough C++ programmer to feel I can contribute with much, code-wise ;) But since you're asking, I must say I can't see why you want LAME to do this. As I see it, your program should take care of all the error-handling. Personally I would always prefer error messages to having a resource silently doing something else, because then I can take action to deal with that error instead of losing control with what's really happening. I mean, for instance, you wouldn't code functions to silently do something instead of reporting back errors when they occur? And I can't see why it should be very difficult to implement error handling in your frontend. Actually, having the errors reported give you many possibilities, like letting users define rules of what to do when a specific genre fails the standard, like "Underground Swede Pop" -> "Swede Pop" etc. I see error reporting as a necessity, and I for one oppose your patch, no offense :) Regards, Daniel -- There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary and those who don't. _______________________________________________ mp3encoder mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/mp3encoder
