Re: err:XS0010 and err:XS0031

Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes:
> I think we don't need err:XS0031 because it seems to be covered by
> err:XS0010.
>
> err:XS0031
>
> "It is a static error to use an option on an atomic step that is not
> declared on steps of that type."
>
> err:XS0010
>
> "It is a static error if a pipeline contains a step whose specified
> inputs, outputs, and options do not match the signature for steps of
> that type."

I agree it isn't necessary, but would the spec be clearer without it?
Right now the use of err:XS0031 in the p:option and p:with-option
descriptions serves to remind readers that you can't refer to bogus
options.

I don't feel strongly about it, but I think I'm inclined to leave it.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | To what excesses will men not go for
http://nwalsh.com/            | the sake of a religion in which they
                              | believe so little and which they
                              | practice so imperfectly!--La Bruyère