Hi Yegappan and Bram 2015-7-25(Sat) 12:27:56 UTC+9 yega...@gmail.com: > Hi Hirohito, > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:42 PM, h_east wrote: > > Hi Yegappan, Bram and List > > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks for testing the patch. I will send out an updated patch in a > >> >> > few days. > >> >> > Hopefully this time it will get included. This has been outstanding > >> >> > for more > >> >> > than two years. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> The updated patch (against vim 7.4.796) is attached. > >> > > >> > Thanks. So now it's ready to include, right? > >> > > >> > >> Yes. Of course :-) > > > > I confirmed this patch. > > > > I found unexpected behaviors. > > > > Thanks for testing the patch and sending the bug report. I am attaching > an updated patch that fixes the two problems. Let me know if you see any > issues with this attached patch.
I confirmed that reported problem have been fixed. Thank you for quickly fixes. I think it is better to discuss. > > This is my opnion. > > When the search pattern exists more in a row, I think :cdo/:ldo confuse to > > use. > > and the processing time tends to be long. Do you understand that the results of the following two commands are different, When the search pattern exists more in a row? (1) :cdo s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g | update (2) :exec "cdo norm!iex_\<Esc>:w\<CR>" The (1) is processed all search pattern. But, The (2) is processed first search pattern in a row. ':cdo' is not necessary, When use only :substitute. When we use the ':cfdo' command such as ':cdo', Speed is also faster. :cfdo %s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g | update So I propose to including patch only ':cfdo' and ':lfdo'. How do you think? -- Best regards, Hirohito Higashi (a.k.a h_east) > > Thanks, > Yegappan > > > > > Case#1 > > How to reproduce: > > 1. cd to vim src dir. > > $ cd (Vim clone dir)/vim/src > > 2. Start Vim. (including this patch version Vim) > > $ vim -N -u NONE > > 3. Grep word "cmdidx" from source and header using vimgrep. > > :vimgrep "\<cmdidx\>" **/*.[ch] > > 4. Open quickfix window. > > :copen > > 5. Do :cdo command. (Intentionally forget the '| update') > > :cdo s/\<cmdidx\>/ex_&/g > > > > Expect behavior: > > - E37 occurs once. > > > > Actual behavior: > > - E37 occurs continuously. > > > > > > -------- > > Case#2 > > How to reproduce: > > 1~4. (Same abobe.) > > 5. Do :cdo command. (Intentionally forget the ":w\<CR>") > > :exec "cdo norm!iex_\<Esc>" > > > > Expect behavior: > > - E37 occurs once. > > > > Actual behavior: > > - E37 occurs continuously. > > > > And, When press Ctrl-C after the '-- More --' display, buffer.c was > > modified unexpectedly. > > > > [original buffer.c:4901] > > if (eap->cmdidx == CMD_unhide || eap->cmdidx == CMD_sunhide) > > > > [modified buffer.c:4901] > > if > > (eap->exexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexexex___________________ > > _____cmdidx == CMD_unhide || eap->cmdidx == CMD_sunhide) > > > > > > -------- > > This is my opnion. > > When the search pattern exists more in a row, I think :cdo/:ldo confuse to > > use. > > and the processing time tends to be long. -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
