Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH 3/3] ed: Fix substitutions with non-determinate patterns

From: Laslo Hunhold <>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:32:58 +0100

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:04:29 -0400
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <> wrote:

Hey Wolfgang,

> Previously, greedy patterns like /.*/ overran the buffer and
> patterns with null matches (e.g. /G*/) never increased the
> offset for rematch(). In both cases, the result was an
> infinite loop.
> Breaking after the first null match follows the behavior of
> GNU ed. It has the virtue of simplicity.

so, which behaviour should we follow (looking at the discussion that
took place)? I would favor the intuïtive behaviour, but maybe there was
some feedback from the Austin ML.

In general, it's true that for 0-byte-handling, the entire architecture
needs a revamp.



Laslo Hunhold <>
Received on Tue Dec 27 2016 - 12:32:58 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Dec 27 2016 - 15:14:49 CET