> > I hesitate to remove any of the outfuncs stuff. It is very useful, and
> > if it is missing, things are harder to debug. Adding the fields I did
> > helped solve several problems I had when testing subselects, and I know
> > Vadim uses that output too. Shame it goes into the rule, but hard to
> > imagine why the rule would not need it, except for fields that are only
> > used by the parser, but I think we need to be complete. A better
> > solution would be to allow rewrite rules to span multiple blocks, or a
> > least allow them to take the space of two blocks.
>
> Or use LO.
Yea, that makes a lot of sense.
--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)
