On 1 March 2016 at 17:00, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> acme/regx.c certainly was derived from sam/regexp.c. See attached diff.
I forgot to also check the other files necessary for sam's command
language, but they too seem similarly derived:
* sam/cmd.c -> acme/edit.c
* sam/parse.h -> acme/edit.h
*
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:59:41AM +, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> On 28 February 2016 at 17:20, Greg Reagle wrote:
> > But I don't see a big problem here, only a minor inconvenience. Do your
> > insert before your append when using a braced compound command, and it
> > works fine.
>
> Yes, it's
On 03/01/2016 11:39 AM, Raphaël Proust wrote:
On 1 March 2016 at 12:43, Greg Reagle wrote:
That's interesting. It's funny that sam does a better job since acme is a
successor to sam. I wonder if/how they share code.
I don't know if they do. The man page for acme references sam directly
(and
On 1 March 2016 at 12:43, Greg Reagle wrote:
> That's interesting. It's funny that sam does a better job since acme is a
> successor to sam. I wonder if/how they share code.
acme/regx.c certainly was derived from sam/regexp.c. See attached diff.
cls
--- sam/regexp.c2016-03-01 16:52:35.
On 1 March 2016 at 12:43, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:59:41AM +, Raphaël Proust wrote:
>> On 28 February 2016 at 17:20, Greg Reagle wrote:
> That's interesting. It's funny that sam does a better job since acme is a
> successor to sam. I wonder if/how they share code.
I
On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 07:59:41AM +, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> On 28 February 2016 at 17:20, Greg Reagle wrote:
> > I get these results: The first version works fine. The second version
> > shows error "?changes not in sequence" and does nothing.
>
> There is a difference between acme's handl
On 28 February 2016 at 17:20, Greg Reagle wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:34:37AM +, Raphaël Proust wrote:
>> I managed to reconstruct an example that I am dissatisfied about.
>> The following works:
>> Edit ,x/test/{
>> i/<
>> a/>
>> }
>> But not the following:
>> Edit ,x/test/{
>> a/>
>>
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 11:34:37AM +, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> I managed to reconstruct an example that I am dissatisfied about.
> The following works:
> Edit ,x/test/{
> i/<
> a/>
> }
> But not the following:
> Edit ,x/test/{
> a/>
> i/<
> }
> The second one you the result "t" and a warning abo
