David Fetter wrote:
> Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Bjrklund, that uses -f
> for input files rather than <. This makes error messages, &c. more
> expressive.
>
> David Fetter
Applied. Thanks.
(I reordered the arguments as Peter suggested.)
--
Bruce Momjian
Uh, how is it more expressive? The only difference I see is the
line numbers. Is that it?
That could be a very big deal in case of error on a large file, so
yes.
In IRC, I always recommend that ppl use -f, since it's so much more
useful :)
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:18:31PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> >
> > Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Bjrklund, that
> > uses -f for input files rather than <. This makes error messages,
> > &c. more expressive.
>
> Uh, how is it more expressive? The only differe
David Fetter wrote:
>
> Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Bjrklund, that uses -f for
> input files rather than <. This makes error messages, &c. more
> expressive.
Uh, how is it more expressive? The only difference I see is the line
numbers. Is that it?
--
Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote:
> Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Björklund, that uses -f for
> input files rather than <. This makes error messages, &c. more
> expressive.
To be portable, options must be before non-option arguments, so you need
to rearrange the command-line arguments in the exampl
Folks,
Please find enclosed a patch, per Dennis Björklund, that uses -f for
input files rather than <. This makes error messages, &c. more
expressive.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Index: doc/sr
