Re: vi - inability to search backwards for ?
On 2023-05-13 20:53:01 -0700, Kastus Shchuka wrote: > Have you tried using ?[\?] in extended mode? It works for me. Yes, that's already in the blog posting and is a bit more to type and remember than a ?\?
Re: vi - inability to search backwards for ?
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:11:23PM -0700, Jeremy Mates wrote: > A search for /\/ is okay; this discards the \ and searches for "/" > > A search for ?\? is not okay; this discards the \ and searches for "?" > which is an invalid regular expression, "RE error: repetition-operator > operand invalid". > > A problematic bare leading ? on a backwards search can be escaped by > the following, though I'm not sure if that's an ideal fix. Thoughts? Have you tried using ?[\?] in extended mode? It works for me.
Re: vi - inability to search backwards for ?
On 2023-05-13 10:26:42 +0200, Andreas Kusalananda Kähäri wrote: > I'm assuming this is with the "extended" option set in vi, right? Yes.
Re: vi - inability to search backwards for ?
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:11:23PM -0700, Jeremy Mates wrote:
> A search for /\/ is okay; this discards the \ and searches for "/"
>
> A search for ?\? is not okay; this discards the \ and searches for "?"
> which is an invalid regular expression, "RE error: repetition-operator
> operand invalid".
>
> A problematic bare leading ? on a backwards search can be escaped by
> the following, though I'm not sure if that's an ideal fix. Thoughts?
>
> --- search.c.orig Sat Dec 10 08:06:18 2022
> +++ search.c Fri May 12 23:05:31 2023
> @@ -120,6 +120,12 @@
> plen = t - ptrn;
> }
>
> + if (delim == '?' && *ptrn == '?') {
> + ptrn--;
> + plen++;
> + *ptrn = '\\';
> + }
> +
> /* Compile the RE. */
> if (re_compile(sp, ptrn, plen, >re, >re_len, >re_c,
> RE_C_SEARCH |
I'm assuming this is with the "extended" option set in vi, right?
--
Andreas (Kusalananda) Kähäri
SciLifeLab, NBIS, ICM
Uppsala University, Sweden
.
vi - inability to search backwards for ?
A search for /\/ is okay; this discards the \ and searches for "/"
A search for ?\? is not okay; this discards the \ and searches for "?"
which is an invalid regular expression, "RE error: repetition-operator
operand invalid".
A problematic bare leading ? on a backwards search can be escaped by
the following, though I'm not sure if that's an ideal fix. Thoughts?
--- search.c.orig Sat Dec 10 08:06:18 2022
+++ search.cFri May 12 23:05:31 2023
@@ -120,6 +120,12 @@
plen = t - ptrn;
}
+ if (delim == '?' && *ptrn == '?') {
+ ptrn--;
+ plen++;
+ *ptrn = '\\';
+ }
+
/* Compile the RE. */
if (re_compile(sp, ptrn, plen, >re, >re_len, >re_c,
RE_C_SEARCH |
