Bug in *report with -fp

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:47:13PM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
> I still say it should complain.  It'll complain if you use -f and no output
> format exists for the specified processing.  Not seeing a semantic
> difference, here.

I came to this late, but I concur with Mark: the semantics of -fp are
"force the use of this processing with no output format", and that
*should* act differently WRT a missing table than -y and -z do; there
are good reasons to use *those* with names of nonexistent tables (or,
more properly, the current behaviour allows you to force the non-use of
such a table without having to have an extra switch for it)...

but that's not sensible given -fp's semantics.

It really ought to complain.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274