On (04/02/18 17:15), Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Hmm, I have never seen the error code in this form. > > We have limited space to print it and error numbers currently can be up > to 0xfff (4095). So, I have no better idea how to squeeze them while > thinking that "(efault)" is much harder to parse in case of error
'efault' looks to me like a misspelled 'default', for some reason.
-ss
