Hi Andrew,
On 30/08/18 13:31, Andrew Cooper wrote:
Callers are inconsistent with whether they pass a newline to panic(),
including adjacent calls in the same function using different styles.
painc() not expecting a newline is inconsistent with most other printing
functions, which is most likely
>>> On 07.09.18 at 18:42, wrote:
> [Merging part of the later conversion]
>
> Reducing the number of lines printed from a panic/backtrace may be a
> good thing, but please can we not conflate it with this which is fix an
> API inconsistency.
Well, later on in the conversion I've also agreed that
On 31/08/18 07:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
>> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts parts of c/s
51ad90aea21c - What can I say? Several years of hindsight is very
>>> On 31.08.18 at 09:30, wrote:
> On 31/08/18 09:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.08.18 at 09:12, wrote:
>>> On 31/08/18 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 31.08.18 at 08:43, wrote:
> On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
>>> On 30/08/18 15:07
On 31/08/18 09:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.18 at 09:12, wrote:
>> On 31/08/18 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.08.18 at 08:43, wrote:
On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
>> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.08.1
>>> On 31.08.18 at 09:12, wrote:
> On 31/08/18 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.08.18 at 08:43, wrote:
>>> On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
>>> The observant amo
On 31/08/18 09:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.18 at 08:43, wrote:
>> On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
>> The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts p
>>> On 31.08.18 at 08:43, wrote:
> On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
>>> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
> The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts parts of c/s
> 51ad90aea21c - What can I
On 31/08/18 08:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
>> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts parts of c/s
51ad90aea21c - What can I say? Several years of hindsight is very
>>> On 30.08.18 at 19:08, wrote:
> On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
>>> The observant amongst you might realise that this reverts parts of c/s
>>> 51ad90aea21c - What can I say? Several years of hindsight is very useful,
>>> and
>>> at the time I did ask
On 30/08/18 15:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
>> Callers are inconsistent with whether they pass a newline to panic(),
>> including adjacent calls in the same function using different styles.
>>
>> painc() not expecting a newline is inconsistent with most other printing
>
>>> On 30.08.18 at 14:31, wrote:
> Callers are inconsistent with whether they pass a newline to panic(),
> including adjacent calls in the same function using different styles.
>
> painc() not expecting a newline is inconsistent with most other printing
> functions, which is most likely why we've
Callers are inconsistent with whether they pass a newline to panic(),
including adjacent calls in the same function using different styles.
painc() not expecting a newline is inconsistent with most other printing
functions, which is most likely why we've gained so many inconsistencies.
Switch pan
13 matches
Mail list logo
