Don't bother looping until the 1024 bytes are read. Writing the lock
file takes just one shot too, and that is more important to get right.
Also, correct the type for the result of read(), so that -1 doesn't
get turned into a positive number, which would mean that any error
would get ignored.
It would be better if nano wrote the full filename into the lock file,
because that would be clearer when Vim displays its warning, but...
this is faster and will do for now.
(Nano should simply also store the full filename in the openfile struct,
so that get_full_path() needs to be called just once for each file.)
This addresses https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57713.
The call of ferror() as parameter of a %s specifier was a mistake --
it returns a number, not a string. Avoid the problem by combining
two error checks.
The man page of fwrite() does not say anything about errno, but I guess
that the function calls write() and that the possible error numbers of
that function apply.
In theory it is now possible that fclose() fails and returns an error
that then masks an earlier error of fwrite(). But I can't be bothered:
lock files are not essential, and any errors that might occur are most
likely overlooked anyway because they are not displayed in red.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57724.
Bug existed since lock files were introduced, in version 2.3.2,
commit bf88d27a.
Because ^C is needed for Cancel in most other menus.
This fixes https://bugs.debian.org/950223.
Reported-by: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>
Bug existed since version 4.0, commit 3a170d2c.
All the things that we need are located within the first 68 bytes of
the .swp file. We do write byte 1007 when the file is modified, but
we never reference it. We always wrote just 1024 bytes to the .swp
file, so it makes no sense to read in any more than that.
(Vim writes 4096 bytes to a .swp at first, before adding undo stuff
four seconds later. But the 1024 bytes appear to be enough for Vim
to recognize it as a lock file.)
When asking "continue?", I always thought that answering No would mean
that nano would not continue, that it would stop, that it would abort.
But No only means that it will not open the relevant file but continues
anyway to start up. Asking "open anyway?" is more easily understood in
that way.
Unreadable or corrupt lock files are not a user error nor user intent,
so they should not keep the user from editing the corresponding file.
Also, combine some error conditions to compact the code.
This addresses https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57700.
When in view mode, the file cannot be edited, so there is no need to
warn anyone (through a lock file) that the file might soon change.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57694.
At that point, 'u->cutbuffer' will always be NULL, either from the
original creation of the INSERT undo item, or by having been freed
and set to NULL by do_redo().
The 'prev' and 'next' links get assigned to immediately after the
call of copy_node(). And anyway, it does not make sense to link
a copied node to the predecessor and successor of its original.
Also slightly regroup some lines.
Also, the disabling of the keyboard interrupt (SIGINT) must happen
after that initialization call, otherwise ^C will still do nothing
after returning from suspension (when nano is built against Slang).
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57656.
Bug existed since version 2.2.0, commit daaf468c.
When the guiding stripe (when softwrapping) will be shown in
a later chunk, it shouldn't be shown in the current chunk.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57654.
Bug existed since --guidestripe was introduced, in version 4.0.
When having prepared a line for displaying on the screen, nano already
determind whether the line extends beyond the right edge or not. There
is no need to calculate again the full width of the current line later.
Just let display_string() make a note whether the piece of text that
it converted to displayable form still has more text coming after it,
and use this note when it's time to show the ">" continuation sign.
Using a static variable is ugly, but passing it along as a parameter
would be even uglier, because for all other calls of display_string()
the parameter would be just a useless burden.
(The diff is stupid. It should just remove 440 contiguous lines, and
add back 440 contiguous lines further down. Instead it tries to find
similarities between what is moved and what remains, and makes a mess.
You have to use --patience or --minimal to get the better diff.)
The plain keys that are valid in the help viewer are a perfect subset of
those that are valid in the file browser, so just use the same function
to do the interpretation for both. It is not a problem that it returns
function pointers for some keystrokes that have no meaning in the help
viewer, because both NULL and an unhandled function pointer result in
the "Unbound key" message.
Allow the user to paste in the character for Yes, No, or All. If the
paste contains more than one character, ignore all but the first.
This fully fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57623.
Reported-by: Brand Huntsman <alpha@qzx.com>
The tiny version is oblivious of bracketed pastes, as it serves no
purpose: in the tiny version there is no auto-indent nor undo nor
tabs-to-spaces conversion.
Any modifier keys that are needed to start the execution of a macro
(or of a string bind) should not affect the interpretation of the
keystrokes that are contained within the macro or the string.
This fixes https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57660.
Bug existed since macros were introduced, in version 2.9.0.
