Xref: utzoo comp.bugs.sys5:1318 comp.unix.i386:7267 comp.unix.questions:24094 comp.unix.xenix:12569
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!mikros!mwtech!martin
From: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Obscure Vi bug?
Message-ID: <859@mwtech.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jul 90 15:39:24 GMT
References: <798@intelhf.hf.intel.com> <846@mwtech.UUCP> <618@tetrauk.UUCP>
Reply-To: martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel)
Organization: MIKROS Systemware, Darmstadt/W-Germany
Lines: 36

In article <618@tetrauk.UUCP> rick@tetrauk.UUCP (Rick Jones) writes:
>
>On this subject, this version has another annoying bug, involving the use of p
>or P in macros.  E.g. I use a key mapping to swap adjacent characters, which is
>the sequence xph (the h keeps the cursor in the same position).  As a macro,
>the h gets inserted into the text!  This happens in any macro using p or P
>followed by other characters, all the subsequent characters get inserted, not
>obeyed as commands.  Lots of macros won't work because of this, including the
>wonderful word-completion macro recently posted in comp.editors.
>
>Is this unique to the SCO version of vi?  And will someone at SCO please fix
>it.

Same on ISC 386/ix 2.0.2 as I just tried. Strange enough that p and P
work if they are the last command character of a mapped sequence. For
any particular problem one may try to change the sequence so that the
p or P appears last, like lxhhp which gives you what you expect from xph,
but in general it's annoying.

One more of these things (which I don't consider a real bug, as the
topics this thread started with, but rather a "anomality").

The commands d, c, y, <, >, and ! require a following move. Has
anybody allready noticed that this seems all fine but there's
an inconsitency with a w-move vs. the e-move in the context of
the c-command? Though e and w move to different places and do
something different in case of the de- and ye-command, they behave
the same when combined with the c-command. Shouldn't cw include the
blanks after the word and only ce behave the way most of us know
from cw. (Yes, it would be inconvienient to change habits, but it's
not "logical" how it is now.)

P.S. Wouldn't it be a nice idea to archive these "anomalities" somewhere.
(Volunteers? Oh what a silence around - I could hear a penny fall ... :-))
-- 
Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83