Heinz Mezera posted on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:37:54 +0200 as excerpted: > sometimes a single toggle and once in a while more than one toggle > achieved the expected result.
=:^) > Any idea why it get's stuck? Nothing definitive. If I was a coder I imagine I could analyze the code and see, but... But from my own experiments, one such case might be deliberate, for instance, on typing an opening [, which can't be properly or completely parsed until a closing ] appears. It may be that the code deliberately shuts off parsing in this case, and "forgets" to turn it back on again, thus leaving the process stuck until toggled. More broadly, it may be that the process stops any time a non-fixed literal is typed. A . indicates a single char and is thus pretty much fixed, while a * indicates zero-or-more, and could trigger a stop if there's some doubt how many chars it should cover. Said doubt would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced as soon as the next literal is typed, but again, a missing call to reactivate a stalled parse would leave the thing "stuck" until toggling reactivates it. That's the general feeling I get as I watch it, but while it's a reasonable explanation, it could well be reasonable and wrong, too. Since I don't really read code to any major degree (in some limited instances I can read it well enough to for instance hack a broken patch into applying, again, etc) here, that's what it remains, a reasonable, but possibly incorrect, idea. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
