Message112416
| Author | brian.curtin |
|---|---|
| Recipients | brian.curtin, ezio.melotti, lukasz.langa |
| Date | 2010-08-02.02:38:41 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.0016145441 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1280716724.52.0.443567955596.issue9452@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Although you say this is fairly common, I haven't heard of anyone using or requesting this type of feature. Do you have any real-world use cases for this? Before we start adding more read methods I think we should know who wants them and why. I'm not sure duplicates should raise exceptions. To me, the current behavior of using the last read section/option is fine. It's predictable and it works. Halting a program's operation due to duplicate sections/options seems a bit harsh to me. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2010-08-02 02:38:44 | brian.curtin | set | recipients: + brian.curtin, ezio.melotti, lukasz.langa |
| 2010-08-02 02:38:44 | brian.curtin | set | messageid: <1280716724.52.0.443567955596.issue9452@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2010-08-02 02:38:42 | brian.curtin | link | issue9452 messages |
| 2010-08-02 02:38:41 | brian.curtin | create | |