New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
error out if --next is used without a prior URL #10782
Conversation
Reported-by: 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson Ref: #10769 (comment)
All I know is I see "error out if --next is used without a prior URL". It is really hard to tell using my small computer screens what is happening in the code. So I'll just have to rely on the titles. If you are making --next more forgiving, that's good! If the latter is the case, then I was going to say the following, which maybe isn't now necessary: I am saying just like perl -we 'for(1){next; next; next;}' does it produce an error? No. Not even a warning. So --next should just do the job that it says it does on the command Currently it has an unnecessary internal check that there must be a URL Please eliminate this unnecessary check and resultant error. Now you want to even add another unnecessary check: to make sure there Please don't add that unnecessary check either. Just like the perl example above, the next should simply mind its own So what about
Well, the --next should simply wipe out the -w, Anyway, let's take a look at a real life config file producer that runs
Here we see the user already learned he needs to put the 'next' before, Now that won't even be good enough. Now he will need to double the size |
Then you made a weird command line and curl tells you about it.
I disagree. Before this change, curl accepted the syntax but the outcome was not clear or even understandable - you reported a bug that was a direct result of that internal confusion. By allowing wrong syntax and just silently trying to survive anyway, we make the behavior harder to understand and less deterministic.
That user does not use
I don't understand. Why can it only be written 999 times? |
I was talking about the GitHub title. Anyway, for a large batch job, in a config file, we make 1000 of these, (here's two):
That already caused an error.
and the error goes away! But today, you are proposing to also make that That means that there is no longer to make 1000 sets each with five Sure, of my 1000 sets, the very first or the very last next serves no It is like
Oh boy, there is a wasted comma! Error: not at all. |
Am I mistaken or this closed PR somehow found its way into master?
|
One argument for allowing the redundant placement of
|
No description provided.