From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-28 12:40:43
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> Richard Geiger take not:
oops, "note"----------^^^
> Interestingly, these changes seem to show that the FAIL_EXPECTED Jam
> extension is unneccessary as long as we have the extended NOCARE semantics
> for targets with build actions. If this proves to be the case we should
> throw out FAIL_EXPECTED.
>
> -Dave