Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:3569 comp.editors:2298
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!robobar!ronald
From: ronald@robobar.Co.Uk (Ronald S H Khoo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.editors
Subject: Re: vi in SCO UNIX
Message-ID: <9101020746.AA08202@robobar.Co.Uk>
Date: 2 Jan 91 07:46:18 GMT
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Lines: 31
In-Reply-To: <9101012058.AA04469@jpr.com>
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90)
To: sco-list@uunet.uu.net
Cc: comp-editors

[ I've crossposted to USENET because I'm hoping someone has an answer to
  a question regarding the SVR3 vi in general ]

In article <9101012058.AA04469@jpr.com> on the SCO mailing list
jpr@jpr.com wrote:

> This is a mapping which I used daily in SCO Xenix to compose replies to
> CompuServe messages.
> 
> map  #1  ?#: [0-9][0-9].* S[0-9][0-9]*/?Wyt N<<Ore^[pmao/post unf^[mbO
> 
> It fails in SCO Unix. Does anyone know what they've changed in vi, besides
> using terminfo instead of termcap?

Regular expressions in SCO Unix vi seem to be severely broken, I *think*
it's closure of a character class that does it.  "ver" on SCO Unix says
SVR3.1, does anyone know if the base port for that has such problems?

Anyway, personally, I gave up with the SCO Unix vi and use the SCO
Xenix vi instead.  Doing that does pose problems, like % substitution
doesn't work from the :! mode (top bit gets set), but that's a lot
less hassle than broken regular expressions.

The Xenix vi is directly descended from the BSD (no AT&T parentage other
than the original ed code) "ver" says 3.7 6/10/83.  Putting the
date in is so much more informative than just "SVR3.1".

	$ cat /dev/icbm > AT&T.

-- 
ronald@robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)