Re: func.sgml

>> You have to be very careful these days when applying stale patches to >> func.sgml --- there's enough duplicate boilerplate that "patch' can easily >> be fooled into dumping an addition into the wrong place. > > This is yet another indication to me that there's probably a good case > for break

Re: func.sgml

Andrew Dunstan writes: > At > > Tom noted: > >> You have to be very careful these days when applying stale patches to >> func.sgml --- there's enough duplicate boilerplate that "patch' can easily >> be fooled into dumping a

Re: func.sgml

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom noted: >> You have to be very careful these days when applying stale patches to >> func.sgml --- there's enough duplicate boilerplate that "patch' can easily >> be fooled into dumping an addition into the wrong place. > This is yet another indication to me that there