Kyle> If we're getting more bogus warnings than real warnings then Kyle> that is the signal that the ebola-check code should be Kyle> removed. This is not true for me. Of the two Ebola warnings I remember seeing in the last 6 months, the one in AUC-TeX is due to use of `previous-char' instead of `char-before' (a distant cousin of Ebola), and the one in W3 was genuine Ebola. The AUC-TeX "bug" would never cause a problem, unless the TeX file was broken and included NULLs, but the W3 bug did cause broken display, and it is highly unlikely that I would have been able to track it down without the Ebola warning. I don't know, maybe Bill Perry would have found it trivial. But in the event, I could supply the symptom, the bug, and a trial patch. I don't have any objection to removing it from the defaults, since it clearly is a massive annoyance to many testers; but my usage patterns evidently throw up few false positives (and these are hardly annoying to me personally), so to me it is still a useful option, one which I would turn on if available. I have no idea what it costs to maintain the code, though. -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ What are those two straight lines for? "Free software rules."