Hi Thomas,
> So, OK with a comment why this appears? Or should I simply
> rename GFC_DEP_ERROR to GFC_DEP_NODEPFOUND to make this a bit
> clearer?
I recommend the latter. Reporting an error should be done only when an
error occurred, but no dependency detected does not feel like an error.
Let's reserve GFC_DEP_ERROR for real error cases (that may occur in the
future).
With the latter the patch is ok for me. In fact, was I thinking about
doing something similar to the gfc_dependendy routines. (Note, I have
no reviewer priviliges, so this is just a vote).
Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
