Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:3703 comp.editors:2324 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.editors Subject: Re: vi in SCO UNIX Message-ID: <1991Jan4.040834.14458@NCoast.ORG> Date: 4 Jan 91 04:08:34 GMT References: <9101020746.AA08202@robobar.Co.Uk> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) Followup-To: comp.unix.sysv386 Organization: North Coast Computer Resources (ncoast) Lines: 32 As quoted from <9101020746.AA08202@robobar.Co.Uk> by ronald@robobar.Co.Uk (Ronald S H Khoo): +--------------- | > 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? | | $ cat /dev/icbm > AT&T. +--------------- I beg your pardon? The SVR3.1 at work has "vi", and it does *not* have any regexp bugs --- I've had to use it often enough that I would most definitely have crashed into them by now. (I prefer Emacs, but I can't install it on every machine I work on --- client sites, for example.) In any case, don't be so quick to nail AT&T to the cross for something that showed up in an SCO product. It might have been AT&T, or SCO, or SCO might have gotten it from someone else (did Interactive have anything to do with the initial 386 SVR3.1 port?). I *do* have to wonder why a "3.2" Unix comes with a 3.1 vi, though.... ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY