On Nov 2, 11:22 am, mattk <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the reported cases, the first error message was the more accurate > > one. Nobody before you has said that the second error message is more > > accurate. Since it appears that either could be more accurate, the > > correct solution is to include both when raising the Sequel > > exception. Can you work on a patch for that? > > Done. > > Just sent a pull request from: > > http://github.com/mkeveney/sequel/commit/6bfd4c73d873e5a89df58c92addd... > > It's working for us. LMK if this is not what you had in mind.
Just so other people are aware, I rejected this solution as too complex for too little benefit. See http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel/pull/8. If you have any comments, please post here. Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en.
