On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 06:26:52PM +0100, Sven Helmberger wrote: >> Erm, couldn't someone look at 298 first? > > That sounds a bit like 300 which was just fixed. Maybe you should > recheck with the current trunk
Yes it's fixed (the script now produces the expected output). Of course, I wasn't able to look at 300 when I created 298 :-) Thanks for the quick turnaround. Regards, Brian.
