🚀 go-pugleaf

vi version (as returned by :ver)=Version SVR3.1
Operating System=SCO XENIX 386 GT SVr2.3.4g
Executable:
-rwx--x--t   5 bin      bin       138210 Feb 25  1991 /bin/vi

Description:
Partial-line yanks and puts become inoperative after an attempt
to fill the "unnamed buffer" with a partial line containing more
than 126 characters.

(Note, in the following vi command strings, ^[ is ESCAPE.)

To demonstrate, run vi with no arguments, then type "127aa^[",
which will append 127 "a"s to the only line.  Then type "2|y$",
which will move to the 2nd character on the line and yank
126 characters into the unnamed buffer.  As you will notice, there
is no beep or error condition of any kind.  To confirm, type
"$p" to put the contents of the unnamed buffer at the end of
the current line.  This shows that a 126 character yank works as
described in the man page.

Now, to show how a 127 character yank will not work, delete the
line and rebuild it by typing "dd127aa^[".  Now type "1|y$", which
will yank merely 1 character more than the first example.  Note the
beep indicating that there is a problem...

Now, I can accept an apparent 126 character limit, that's ok
because limits are part of life...  The problem (and the bug) is
that the attempt to yank 127 characters has disabled the partial
line yank/delete feature completely!  To confirm this, type
"dd127aa^[", and (as in the first example), "2|y$"...  One would
expect this to work as before, but it does not!

Note that the problem does not occur with whole line/multiple
line yanks or deletes, or any yank using named buffers; both before
and after the bug is activated.

I use vi all day in my job, and this problem has begun to piss
me off (and cause lossage).  I really use this feature a lot, and
it sucks to have to exit and reenter vi to restore normal operation.

So I'm looking for an updated binary, or a patch that will fix
this.  I don't have the source (if I did, I would have fixed it
myself).  I will not use emacs (which is _favorite_expletive_here_),
or elvis (even worse than emacs because it's "almost" vi), or
anything else that is not 100%-this_bug compatible with the version
of vi that I am using, as I do not want to modify my :map[!]s,
:so scripts, or my totally ingrained editing habits.

Unhappily, Tom, the vi zealot.

(follow-ups directed to poster, will summarize/e-mail if requested)

----_|~|_---Tom Seidenberg---Christian--Student--Sysadmin--Programmer---
---|_   _|---Opinions are mine, flames are deserved & creativity was----
---- |_| ---accidental!--------boigy@wpi.edu--stratus.com!jjmhome!tgs---