vi in SCO UNIX
Ronald S H Khoo
ronald at robobar.Co.Uk
Wed Jan 2 18:46:18 AEST 1991
[ 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 at jpr.com> on the SCO mailing list
jpr at 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 at robobar.co.uk +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
More information about the Comp.unix.sysv386
mailing list