Stefano Bagnara wrote:
If you look in the svn history of that file you will see that there was much worst bug about this. Maybe this was neven called anyway because the streams were always correctly closed by James.
In fact, currently it gets called. I checked with a debugger and we notice it from the change in behavior as we change the code.
Imho, the fact that it is (and has been) so buggy is a +1 to remove it and eventually investigate bugs introduced removing that outdated code instead of loosing much more time fixing that code itself.
Again, this is a much too radical diagnosis for me (although in the end it might happen that the whole stuff gets rewritten. but it is not obvious to me at this point in time). But we know this discussion already... ;-) I don't understand this whole reasoning behind 'loosing time', 'discussing too much', 'risk'. I'd rather understand what's really happening, writing test and all this old-fashioned stuff and resolve the problem step-by-step.
Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
