Matthew Winn wrote:
My objection to your idea is that it won't improve security by even
the tiniest bit. It's not defence in depth at all.
We've probably slugged this out enough, but I'm glad to have
another opportunity to promote the "safe modelines" message.
Bram has made the point that desp
Yakov Lerner wrote:
On 5/1/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
How about using SIGALRM when search is progressing, every second ?
SIGALRM handler would store time() into global var (and reload alarm(1)).
The search would check the global var for changes, every line.
It is cheap to
Patch 7.0.241
Problem:":windo throw 'foo'" loops forever. (Andy Wokula)
Solution: Detect that win_goto() doesn't work.
Files: src/ex_cmds2.c
*** ../vim-7.0.240/src/ex_cmds2.c Tue Feb 13 06:21:24 2007
--- src/ex_cmds2.c Wed May 2 22:04:38 2007
***
*** 2287,2292
On 5/1/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/30/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [This is development, removed the Vim maillist]
>
> Yakov Lerner wrote:
>
> > On 4/29/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 4/29/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
On 5/3/07, Bram Moolenaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> The patch adds flag to search() flag to not use smartcase.
> '*' and '#' do not use smartcase, but search() always uses smartcase
> (cannot be turned off).
> When we use search() with @/ pattern that comes from * or #,
>
Yakov Lerner wrote:
> The patch adds flag to search() flag to not use smartcase.
> '*' and '#' do not use smartcase, but search() always uses smartcase
> (cannot be turned off).
> When we use search() with @/ pattern that comes from * or #,
> search() fails because of discrepancy in smartcase han
The patch adds flag to search() flag to not use smartcase.
'*' and '#' do not use smartcase, but search() always uses smartcase
(cannot be turned off).
When we use search() with @/ pattern that comes from * or #,
search() fails because of discrepancy in smartcase handling.
Yakov
--- runtime/doc/
On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:42:02 +1000, "John Beckett"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthew Winn wrote:
> > If there was a security problem in Vim do you really think it
> > couldn't be exploited in 100 characters? That's a pretty shaky
> > foundation on which to build your security.
>
> I am quite su