Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2003 12:53 am, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > Ah, right. Just tested it. This is in fact due to the network
> > rewrite - the SM code isn't prepared for an Error. :-)
> 
> Yeah. So we need to rip out the raising of the error and instead do 
> one of:
> * return nil as before
> * let the error propagate (which means that you will get the "try 
> again/give up" confirmation if we don't change the handling)

Eh, I am not following. Why shouldn't we just adapt SM and add some
error handling?


regards, Göran