Claudio Natoli wrote:
>Merlin Moncure writes:
>
>
>>Perhaps it is a DOS line termination problem...0D/0A...this
>>is the only thing I can think of.
>>
>>
>
>Good idea. There are a few places in the code with suspicious comments like
>the following from scan.c/l
>
> * Unix ones, we accept either \n or \r as a newline. A DOS-style \r\n
> * sequence will be seen as two successive newlines, but that doesn't cause
> * any problems. Comments that start with -- and extend to the next
>
>That looks like a possible suspect for sure.
>
>
>
The CR/NL stuff was the first thing I thought of, of course. The scan
stuff doesn't seem relevant though. My problem with the suggestion of
this being a simple CR/NL translation issue is that in that case we
should be seeing many more newlines than we are. Why does suppressing
just this one work? That's what I find so puzzling.
I'm currently rebuilding and looking into it more.
cheers
andrew
