On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 00:11:56 +0200, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nico wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:28:20 +0200, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> nico wrote:
>>>
Hello,
I come back with that damn table test case. With release 2006.04.22:
[...]
nico wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:28:20 +0200, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> nico wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I come back with that damn table test case. With release 2006.04.22:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> \long\def\dohandleTBLcellA#1#2[#3]#4%
>>
>
> Thanks, i
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:28:20 +0200, Hans Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nico wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I come back with that damn table test case. With release 2006.04.22:
>> [...]
>>
>>
> \long\def\dohandleTBLcellA#1#2[#3]#4%
Thanks, it does it. Another torture case: when column widths are pa
nico wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I come back with that damn table test case. With release 2006.04.22:
>
> - it works fine when the column width is passed as table option,
> - it's wrong when the width is passed via a column setup only,
> - it works ok when both table and column option are passed, and it's
Hello,
I come back with that damn table test case. With release 2006.04.22:
- it works fine when the column width is passed as table option,
- it's wrong when the width is passed via a column setup only,
- it works ok when both table and column option are passed, and it's the
column option that