An example in practice has been cited in the case of "Weise v. Rainville" (1959) 173 CA2d 496, 506, where the objection to such a question was sustained because such a question "raises the danger that the witness does not intend to reply to both questions" when answering "yes" to the compound question. It may also be unclear to the court, jurors, or appellate bodies, what the witness intended in answering the question; and such a question may combine a request for relevant information with a request for information that is irrelevant or inadmissible. If the question is one for which the answer will not be harmful to the opposing attorney's case, then the attorney need not object at all; alternatively, the opposing attorney may object, and specify when objecting that he would not object to a rephrasing of the question into separate, non-compound parts.