On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> [In formulating this question, I found the answer noted at the bottom.
> But I'm posting this anyway, as it does highlight a difference between 3.*
> and 2.* which I wasn't aware of.]
That area was of course re-written for 3.* and I guess I decided to make
the code more robust (or maybe I thought it was a bug!). The new
behaviour is obviously better.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
