On 18 January 2016 at 22:21, Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: > 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. >
Sounds good, thanks. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
