jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) (01/02/91)
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? Jean-Pierre Radley NYC Public Unix jpr@jpr.com CIS: 72160,1341
em@dce.ie (Eamonn McManus) (01/02/91)
jpr@jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: >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 are severely broken in SCO Unix, at least in 3.2.0. Practically any expression using the closure operator (*) can be expected not to work. Your simplest solution is to grab your Xenix vi binary and use it instead. , Eamonn
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (01/03/91)
In article <Message-Id@dce.ie> em@dce.ie (Eamonn McManus) writes: >Regular expressions are severely broken in SCO Unix, at least in 3.2.0. It seems to be fixed in 3.2v2... (a good thing, since I used vi usually, and one of the reasons is that I prefer :%s.... to the equivalent in emacs 8-;) -- Sean Eric Fagan | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it; sef@kithrup.COM | I had a bellyache at the time." -----------------+ -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) (01/03/91)
In article <Message-Id@dce.ie> em@dce.ie (Eamonn McManus) writes: >jpr@jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: >>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. > >Regular expressions are severely broken in SCO Unix, at least in 3.2.0. >Practically any expression using the closure operator (*) can be expected >not to work. Your simplest solution is to grab your Xenix vi binary and >use it instead. I could have been more specific in my first posting, sorry. I have SCO UNIX 3.2.2 Running "what vi" shows: /usr/bin/vi: printf.c:2.2 6/5/79 SCO UNIX 3.2V2 OS 09 Jun 90 I did resort to porting the Xenix 'vi' to use instead. Jean-Pierre Radley NYC Public Unix jpr@jpr.com CIS: 72160,1341