Christian Brabandt wrote:
> On So, 23 Jan 2011, Tim Chase wrote:
> > Per the help at
> >
> > :help last-pattern
> > """
> > Note that two patterns are remembered: One for 'normal'
> > search commands and one for the substitute command ":s".
> > Each time an empty pattern is given, the previously used
> > pattern is used.
> > """
> >
> >
> > There seems to be a peculiarly unidirectional defaulting:
> >
> > Case #1:
> >
> > Start Vim (-u NONE) on a document
> > Search for a pattern with "/"
> >
> > /pattern
> >
> > perform an empty substitute:
> >
> > :%s//whatever/g
> >
> > A blank :s pattern reaches for the most recent "/" pattern. Nice, I use
> > this regularly.
> >
> >
> > Case #2:
> >
> > Start Vim (-u NONE) on a document
> > Perform a replacement (either a null-op, or just the first-in-a-line with
> > further matches later in the line, or a replacement that allows for the
> > pattern to be found again)
> >
> > :%s/pattern/&
> >
> > Hit "n" to find the next instance of the pattern or use "/" with an empty
> > pattern. I get
> >
> > E35: No previous regular expression
> >
> > A blank search *doesn't* reach into the most recent ":s" pattern. I
> > reach for this occasionally and get stung by it every time.
> >
> > However, if I do a
> >
> > :%s//whatever
> >
> > it manages to find that pattern. Likewise if I ":echo @/" it correctly
> > returns my :s pattern that I want to use for my n/N command (or "/" with
> > no regexp).
> >
> >
> > It seems a little inconsistent to find the search pattern in the first
> > case, but to not find the pattern in the second case.
> >
> >
> > Is this a Vim bug (calling for n/N to use the search register), a
> > documentation bug (at a minimum requiring clarification), or just a "suck
> > it up and deal with the oddity" situation?
> >
> > -tim
>
> Here is a patch:
> diff --git a/src/search.c b/src/search.c
> --- a/src/search.c
> +++ b/src/search.c
> @@ -1161,9 +1161,13 @@
> {
> if (spats[RE_SEARCH].pat == NULL) /* no previous pattern */
> {
> - EMSG(_(e_noprevre));
> - retval = 0;
> - goto end_do_search;
> + pat = last_search_pat();
> + if (pat == NULL)
> + {
> + EMSG(_(e_noprevre));
> + retval = 0;
> + goto end_do_search;
> + }
> }
> /* make search_regcomp() use spats[RE_SEARCH].pat */
> searchstr = (char_u *)"";
>
Thanks for the patch. Using another search pattern instead of failing
probably won't break anything.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
149. You find your computer sexier than your girlfriend
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
