J C Calvarese wrote:

> Alternatively, you could rename it dlab_dig, dig_ja, etc. and start
> the numbering over at 0.0.1.

That's what I was thinking but start from 0.0.14.1 I think if I start
back at 0.0.1 it'll be to confusing (and the purpose is to not be
confusing).

If you get the stripping working, let's call it diglab 0.0.14.1 or undig
0.0.15 (unofficial dig). If you do manage to reduce the error to a
smaller test case and still can't figure it out, send me the test case
if you wish so I can help out.

Really I don't know why Burton has the version number so small, dig's
pretty complete, at least half way though I'd say.

--
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/