Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:3576 comp.editors:2302 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!jpradley!jpr From: jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.editors Subject: Re: vi in SCO UNIX Message-ID: <1991Jan02.142840.6855@jpradley.jpr.com> Date: 2 Jan 91 14:28:40 GMT References: <9101020746.AA08202@robobar.Co.Uk> Reply-To: jpr@jpradley.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) Organization: NYC Public Unix Lines: 51 In article <9101020746.AA08202@robobar.Co.Uk> ronald@robobar.Co.Uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >[ I've crossposted to USENET because I'm hoping someone has an answer to > a question regarding the SVR3 vi in general ] I also posted me original question here, it just didn't propagate to you as quickly as the mailing list. >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<> >> 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? The mailing list has this response: >From: Eli Liang >Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 2:00:15 PST >Message-Id: <9101020200.aa12864@scoville.sco.COM> >This is the result of a small bug that was introduced into vi when it was >internationalized. I fixed it for SCO UNIX 3.2v2. You may want to consider >upgrading your OS if this is a problem for you. Sounds good but it seems to me I already have that version. Running "uname -v -r" shows: 3.2 2 And running "what /usr/bin/vi" shows: /usr/bin/vi: printf.c:2.2 6/5/79 SCO UNIX 3.2V2 OS 09 Jun 90 Is there a later version of vi? >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. That's what I'm doing too. But that phenomenon is not consistent. As user "jpr", it happens when I'm a given directory but not when "root" tries vi in that directory. It doesn't happen all the time. Jean-Pierre Radley NYC Public Unix jpr@jpr.com CIS: 72160,1341