On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Yegappan Lakshmanan <yegapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Jan Gosmann <vim-dev-git...@256bit.org> 
> wrote:
>> I can definitely do that, but might take me a few days.
>> Also, I already took a look at the code myself and was considering moving
>> the restofline label to line 847. I suppose which of these is the proper fix
>> depends on whether it makes sense to use %> with the O/P/Q patterns. There
>> is also a line fields->valid = TRUE; that would then be executed. Not
>> entirely sure what the effect of that would be.
> Your suggestion will also work. Some user may try to use %> with the
> O/P/Q patterns. So it is better to move the restofline label. The valid field
> is used to track whether the matched quickfix entry is a valid one (with a
> filename and line number) or not. As we are starting over to find a new match,
> it makes sense to set the field to TRUE again.

I am attaching a patch for this issue with a test for this case.

- Yegappan

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: multifile.diff
Description: Binary data

Raspunde prin e-mail lui