Re: Bug Report (reprise)

[<br...@ph...>]

Chris K wrote:

>> So it looks like the line I call SKIPPY used to be after the (overprint==2)
>> parsing code and has been cut and pasted to now be before the (overprint==2)
>> code.  

Checking this (via "cvs annotate")... unlikely.  That line has been in 
that place ever since enhanced_recursion() moved to term.c late in 2003.

> I don't want to smash backward compatibility and then have to fix it.
> How can I check backward compatibility of enhanced text?
> I have just downloaded the version 3.7.3 code.   Should I take the behavior of
> its post.trm ENHPS_recurse routine as canonical?

Not really.  The latest release (i.e. 4.0) should be the baseline.  Any 
conflicts between source and documentation of that are bugs that need to 
be discussed here and fixed.  In case of doubt, given the lack of will 
to update documentation along with the changes to the source that is 
sort of a tradition among developers, the source is to be trusted more 
than the docs.