From: JF Mezei

> When you use runoff on both, are the only differences in the output some
> extra blank lines present in one and not the other ?


Seems to be true.

> aka: perhaps Runoff doesn't recognize .rnh as one of its own file
> extensions and processes the contents differently ?


Also seems to be true. ".RNh" works like ".rnh".

> > If I had to program for a result like this, I wouldn't know how to
> > start.


Well, now I know how.

From: VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG

> .RNH *is* one of RUNOFF 's known input file extensions. [...]


Yes, but ".rnh" is different from ".RNH". Significantly different,
it seems.

From: koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler)

> Maybe you can submit an SPR?


No, but there is (still, I assume) the product feedback Web form.

From: AEF

> Did you try repeating the RUNOFF commands using uppercase?


The offending file names were upper-case in the commands.

From: "Ken Robinson"

> What is the parse style of your process set to? RUNOFF probably
> doesn't handle the parse style of "extended" very well.


It was Extended (as usual), but Traditional didn't help.

> Also, look at the case lookup setting


Blind (as always).


Case-sensitive file name processing (".RNH" detection) in the RUNOFF
code sounds like the probable cause. Thanks for the suggestions. If
anyone promises a fix, I'll report back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven M. Schweda sms@antinode-org
382 South Warwick Street (+1) 651-699-9818
Saint Paul MN 55105-2547