On 03/06/13 16:47, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 06.03.2013 um 16:38 hat Laszlo Ersek geschrieben:
>> Of course one wonders why a caller would pass in a preexistent Error. > > Thanks, Laszlo, now I think I understand what Paolo and you were > suggesting. > > However, I'd call any such caller buggy and don't feel like adding code > so that it doesn't break. This is what I meant when I said you should > return when you get an error, and not call other functions with the > already used error pointer. I don't disagree. I'm certainly not blocking your patch! :) Laszlo
