Re: [pcre-dev] Here is pcre-7.1-RC1 for you to play with

} Did that happen on a straight ./configure, make, make check run? I
} don't think it happened to me. We should be able to automate such
} things out.

Yes. I should point out that even though it printed out 'failed', the
test still passed, and 'make check' returned success (0). So I'm not
sure there's anything really broken here.

} I suppose this could be done (he said, grudgingly), but I don't
} really see the need - what do other people think? In the Unix world
} we don't normally differentiate different types of executable by
} their names.

I think you're fine naming the scripts whatever you want. :-)

I'd still like to do the Great Reorganizing one day of moving all the
source files into a src subdir, but I agree it doesn't make sense to
do it in this release. I'm prefectly fine with leaving all current
names as they are.

} I *never* use two spaces. I find reading text with extra spaces

And I *always* do. :-) Which is probably where the inconsistency came
from; I never even noticed the one-space periods. (I understand all
the arguments you give in favor of one space, and have
counter-arguments for each, but it's not really relevant; this is one
of those taste issues where there's no real convincing by logic.) Of
course, this is your domain, so I'll try to be careful to use one
space in the future, for pcre code.

craig