Anton Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > SEE should be ok. Please report all cases where it is not.
I have *not* seen one yet (only if a BREAK: was activated before). >> My main concern is not the word BREAK: but I hoped BREAK: would >> help me to find out what is going wrong with brew by using it... > Use ~~ instead. The reason why I did not notice (or even think of) > the brokenness of BREAK: and DBG is that I never use it. I always use > ~~ instead. There are situations where BREAK: is much better, at least for me ;-) This one could be hard to debug without, but ok, I'll try my best... BTW: Jens, if you *do* work on BREAK: please send me a patch. Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
