On 01/24/2011 11:01 AM, Christian Brabandt wrote:
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 *)"";
Christian,
Thanks -- I figured it was a mere couple lines of code to fix,
though I guess the meta-question also pertained to "what's the
right behavior?" My leaning is that the patch is for the better
and should go live (instead of documenting the weirdness). I see
you CC'd vim-dev (where I don't subscribe, so am not CCing), so
I'd be interested in others' thoughts.
Thanks again!
-tim
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
