Theo Buehler writes: > This looks like a reasonable approach and it appears to work. When I > looked at this after jmc's question, I was scared off by the comment > > > * Adding new commands starting with 's' may break the substitute command > code > > * in ex_cmd() (the ex parser). Read through the comments there, first. > > which is also visible in your diff. I'm not entirely sure what this > is talking about. Thus, only a hesitant ok for the C-part of your patch.
That comment is referring to the fact that, e.g., "sg" is a legal command equivalent to "&g"; see ex/ex.c:430. Adding a command starting with "sub" won't affect this, because there's no 'u' flag (plus there's a command starting with "su" already). -- Anthony J. Bentley
