Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Georg, could you have a look? I started to fix it, but then I am stopped > by a bad regex constructor in RegexMatch constructor.
Sorry, I missed this test. It is fixed now, the additional argument to the constructor was actually not needed. > I am not even sure that this tests makes sense. It refers to identical > code in frontend, but I cannot find it. I fixed the reference. I have no idea about the usefulness of this test either, but I don't want to investigate this right now. Georg
