Lars-Johan Liman writes: > Lol! > > Thanks. OK, so I wasn't off the mark, then. :-) > > I'm not even sure this needs to be fixed. It's good that the fact that > the server couldn't be reached is signalled, but continuing seems like > the right thing to do. The message is somewhat misleading though. How > about changing the "question" to a "Please ack!" of some kind? Looking over the code, I'm inclined to agree with Lars-Johan here: there isn't really any need to halt the process, what's important is that the user be made aware of the failure. I'm trying to imagine why the user would _need_ to halt things here. Unless we've got some sort of restart situation, where the user can eg put in the correct password and try again, it doesn't seem useful. Allow me to re-introduce my suggestion of using warnings! It's looking better and better the more I consider it. `delay-warning' is just what we want: it puts messages in the hopper, which aren't displayed until the current command is completely finished, instead of messages clobbering each other and getting buried. It has its own private buffer, keeping information separate. There are plenty of user-facing knobs, and facilities for hiding or silencing the warnings. See attached!