Daniel Pittman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This would make the location of the status report more robust, against
> errors in the output.
I'm not sure if it is a good idea to make things more robust. On the
one hand, robustness is good. But on the other hand, if the current
code barfs, that means that something is wrong. And if we make this
function more robust, the problem might surface sometime later.
And on the third hand, maybe the shell output will resynchronize after
a while, so nobody notices any problems.
What do you all think?
kai
--
I like BOTH kinds of music.
