On 12/25/17, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 12:31:02AM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: >> > I think this is a silly solution, and the documentation is clear >> > enough. >> The manual page certainly is clear enough but the current error message >> is logically wrong, as there are sufficient Xs *in* `XXXXXXs' but just >> not at the end of it, call it nitpicking if you will. >> >> > How did this happen to you? Show the place where it happened to you. >> > Would the text you propose actually have saved you 1 second of time >> > to help you realize what was wrong? I don't think so. >> Just a typo really making me think "this could be clearer". So yes, I >> find telling this way actually saves time understanding the error, even >> if so little. >> >> > If you weren't familiar that the template has to be minimum 6 XXXXXX at >> > end of the string, then you hadn't achieved familiarity of the >> > subject matter yet. >> I agree that knowing one from the manual implies knowing the other as >> well, but it doesn't seem reason enough to keep the error message as is, >> hence the diff. > > I disagree. An error message does not need to document everything, An > erro message should short and clear enough together with the doumentation.
all well and good, but let's not drop words and letters in pursuit of brevity. -pk > This reminds me of the old IRIX compiler, that would cite complete > parapgraphs of the C standard in error mesasges. Of course logically > it was all correct, but it lead to long and unreadable error messages > that filled up disks with build logs. > > -Otto > > > >
