On 7/2/14, 2:22 AM, Filip Krska wrote:
> Of course, treat the patch rather as proof of concept, there may be side
> effect I'm not aware.
There's a more direct one-line patch I'm looking at.
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
``Ars longa, vita b
Hi Chet,
On 06/30/2014 08:55 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/26/14, 4:56 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a di
On 6/26/14, 4:56 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
>>> bash-4 minors.
>>> However, ksh gave a different result all along.
>> This is
On 06/11/2014 07:26 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a different result all along.
This isn't standardized, so I'm not worried about small differences b
On 6/11/14, 6:35 AM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
> Hi,
> bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than previous
> bash-4 minors.
> However, ksh gave a different result all along.
This isn't standardized, so I'm not worried about small differences between
implementations in something t
Hi,
bash-4.3 seems to act differently(better) in vi visual mode, than
previous bash-4 minors.
However, ksh gave a different result all along.
Steps to reproduce:
1. set -o vi
2. meta+k
3. v
4. for i in $(seq 10); do j=$( echo $i$i ); echo $j; done
echo second
# save and close the editor
Results
