On 1/18/16 11:53 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> So, how about instead interpreting a missing/0 date as a NaD (Not A Date),
> rather as readline does anyway with time 0, and providing a slightly more
> meaningful message than the current "??". Then a) I would be able to remove
> all my bogus "1" timestamps, and b) both "0" and missing timestamps would
> give the user a clue that data was missing and/or zero?
I think that a more meaningful error string would be useful. We'll try
reporting on invalid dates if the timestamp string in the history entry is
non-empty.
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU c...@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
