On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:30:35AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jason McIntyre writes:
> > shouldn;t it be that we should show the suspend command as
> >
> > sus[pend]
> >
> > the shortest "s" matches "substitute", right. so we show it as
> >
> > s[ubstitute]
> >
> > i
Hi,
Jason McIntyre writes:
> shouldn;t it be that we should show the suspend command as
>
> sus[pend]
>
> the shortest "s" matches "substitute", right. so we show it as
>
> s[ubstitute]
>
> i cannot find any text that describes what "su" *should* match though,
> so i'm not sure.
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:57:35AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jason McIntyre writes:
> > ok by me. note that posix ex(1) does detail a working [s]ubstitute command,
> > so i'm not sure whether we should support this or not.
>
> Hm, so it does. I think I would prefer to follow
Theo Buehler writes:
> This looks like a reasonable approach and it appears to work. When I
> looked at this after jmc's question, I was scared off by the comment
>
> > * Adding new commands starting with 's' may break the substitute command
> code
> > * in ex_cmd() (the ex parser). Read
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 03:57:35AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jason McIntyre writes:
> > ok by me. note that posix ex(1) does detail a working [s]ubstitute command,
> > so i'm not sure whether we should support this or not.
>
> Hm, so it does. I think I would prefer to follow
Hi,
Jason McIntyre writes:
> ok by me. note that posix ex(1) does detail a working [s]ubstitute command,
> so i'm not sure whether we should support this or not.
Hm, so it does. I think I would prefer to follow POSIX in this case.
Here's a diff to allow "substitute" to work.
Annoyingly, there's
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:14:46AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From vi(1):
>
> [range] s[ubstitute] [/pattern/replace/] ??[options] [count] [flags]
> [range] & [options] [count] [flags]
> [range] ~ [options] [count] [flags]
> Make substitutions. The
