> Didn't you say that mod_include used them the other direction? Does this
> mean that mod_include is now wrong?
I said that I thought it was, yeah, but that was after only a very brief
inspection. It turns out that it's just playing tricky games, I think. I'm
still trying to digest mod_include. =-) But anyway, if they were
backwards, we'd be seeing scrambled web pages and other very wacky behavior.
Somebody who knows mod_include better than I do could verify this if they
had a second...
> > I don't suppose anyone would object if I documented [the ring macros]?
=-)
> Heh... no :-)
I didn't think so. ;-] It's on my short list.
--Cliff
---------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
804-244-8615
Charlottesville, VA
