From 5a2f5b131d6f955853b64e392a48473575b24fd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kazuya kawaguchi <kawakazu80@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 19:53:21 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] add #712 reproduction case

---
 .../20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt       | 623 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts   |  19 +
 packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts            |   8 +
 3 files changed, 650 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 packages/message-compiler/test/fixtures/20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt

diff --git a/packages/message-compiler/test/fixtures/20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt b/packages/message-compiler/test/fixtures/20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..be8decc80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/packages/message-compiler/test/fixtures/20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,623 @@
+This article attempts to provide a general introduction to atheism.  Whilst I
+have tried to be as neutral as possible regarding contentious issues, you
+should always remember that this document represents only one viewpoint.  I
+would encourage you to read widely and draw your own conclusions; some
+relevant books are listed in a companion article.
+
+To provide a sense of cohesion and progression, I have presented this article
+as an imaginary conversation between an atheist and a theist.  All the
+questions asked by the imaginary theist are questions which have been cropped
+up repeatedly on alt.atheism since the newsgroup was created.  Some other
+frequently asked questions are answered in a companion article.
+
+Please note that this article is arguably slanted towards answering questions
+posed from a Christian viewpoint.  This is because the FAQ files reflect
+questions which have actually been asked, and it is predominantly Christians
+who proselytize on alt.atheism.
+
+So when I talk of religion, I am talking primarily about religions such as
+Christianity, Judaism and Islam, which involve some sort of superhuman divine
+being.  Much of the discussion will apply to other religions, but some of it
+may not.
+
+"What is atheism?"
+
+Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God.
+Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is
+often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong
+atheism".
+
+It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak
+atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong
+atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not
+fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".
+
+Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their
+atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making
+flat-out denials.
+
+"But isn't disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn't exist?"
+
+Definitely not.  Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe
+it to be true.  Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to
+believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or
+not.  Which brings us to agnosticism.
+
+"What is agnosticism then?"
+
+The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor Huxley at a meeting of the
+Metaphysical Society in 1876.  He defined an agnostic as someone who
+disclaimed ("strong") atheism and believed that the ultimate origin of things
+must be some cause unknown and unknowable.
+
+Thus an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for
+sure whether God exists.
+
+Words are slippery things, and language is inexact.  Beware of assuming that
+you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact
+that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic.  For example, many people
+use agnosticism to mean "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when
+referring to "strong atheism".
+
+Beware also that because the word "atheist" has so many shades of meaning, it
+is very difficult to generalize about atheists.  About all you can say for
+sure is that atheists don't believe in God.  For example, it certainly isn't
+the case that all atheists believe that science is the best way to find out
+about the universe.
+
+"So what is the philosophical justification or basis for atheism?"
+
+There are many philosophical justifications for atheism.  To find out why a
+particular person chooses to be an atheist, it's best to ask her.
+
+Many atheists feel that the idea of God as presented by the major religions
+is essentially self-contradictory, and that it is logically impossible that
+such a God could exist.  Others are atheists through scepticism, because they
+see no evidence that God exists.
+
+"But isn't it impossible to prove the non-existence of something?"
+
+There are many counter-examples to such a statement.  For example, it is
+quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than
+all other prime numbers.  Of course, this deals with well-defined objects
+obeying well-defined rules.  Whether Gods or universes are similarly
+well-defined is a matter for debate.
+
+However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably
+impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the non-existence of
+God.  If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to
+show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.
+
+If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in
+question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid
+may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing
+might be found, to show that it isn't there.  Such an exhaustive search is
+often impractical or impossible.  There is no such problem with largest
+primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.
+
+Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist
+unless we have evidence that they do.  Even theists follow this rule most of
+the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively
+prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.
+
+To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be
+tested.  We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to
+prove that he doesn't exist anywhere.  So the sceptical atheist assumes by
+default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.
+
+Those who profess strong atheism usually do not claim that no sort of God
+exists; instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover
+varieties of God described by followers of various religions.  So whilst it
+may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be
+possible to prove that (say) a God as described by a particular religious
+book does not exist.  It may even be possible to prove that no God described
+by any present-day religion exists.
+
+In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very
+close to believing that no God exists.  However, it is sufficiently different
+that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of
+God are not really applicable.
+
+"But what if God is essentially non-detectable?"
+
+If God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
+must be measurable.  Hence his interaction with our universe must be
+detectable.
+
+If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he
+does not interact with our universe in any way.  Many atheists would argue
+that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no
+importance whether he exists or not.
+
+If the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites.
+Surely he should still be detectable today?
+
+Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically
+verifiable, physical way.  It must surely be possible to perceive some
+effect caused by his presence, though; otherwise, how can I distinguish him
+from all the other things that don't exist?
+
+"OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but
+ isn't it still a religious belief?"
+
+One of the most common pastimes in philosophical discussion is "the
+redefinition game".  The cynical view of this game is as follows:
+
+Person A begins by making a contentious statement.  When person B points out
+that it can't be true, person A gradually re-defines the words he used in the
+statement until he arrives at something person B is prepared to accept.  He
+then records the statement, along with the fact that person B has agreed to
+it, and continues.  Eventually A uses the statement as an "agreed fact", but
+uses his original definitions of all the words in it rather than the obscure
+redefinitions originally needed to get B to agree to it.  Rather than be seen
+to be apparently inconsistent, B will tend to play along.
+
+The point of this digression is that the answer to the question "Isn't
+atheism a religious belief?" depends crucially upon what is meant by
+"religious".  "Religion" is generally characterized by belief in a superhuman
+controlling power -- especially in some sort of God -- and by faith and
+worship.
+
+[ It's worth pointing out in passing that some varieties of Buddhism are not
+  "religion" according to such a definition. ]
+
+Atheism is certainly not a belief in any sort of superhuman power, nor is it
+categorized by worship in any meaningful sense.  Widening the definition of
+"religious" to encompass atheism tends to result in many other aspects of
+human behaviour suddenly becoming classed as "religious" as well -- such as
+science, politics, and watching TV.
+
+"OK, so it's not a religion.  But surely belief in atheism (or science) is
+ still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
+
+Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one
+actually believes in.
+
+Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to
+make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience.  Most atheists
+try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to
+questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
+
+Science has a number of core assumptions.  For example, it is generally
+assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.  These are
+the sort of core assumptions atheists make.  If such basic ideas are called
+"acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on
+acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
+
+Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something.
+According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of
+faith.  Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as
+religious followers when claiming that something is "certain".  This is not a
+general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to
+state with certainty that the universe exists.
+
+Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof.
+Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism
+has no beliefs.  Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as
+even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or
+the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
+
+"If atheism is not religious, surely it's anti-religious?"
+
+It is an unfortunate human tendency to label everyone as either "for" or
+"against", "friend" or "enemy".  The truth is not so clear-cut.
+
+Atheism is the position that runs logically counter to theism; in that sense,
+it can be said to be "anti-religion".  However, when religious believers
+speak of atheists being "anti-religious" they usually mean that the atheists
+have some sort of antipathy or hatred towards theists.
+
+This categorization of atheists as hostile towards religion is quite unfair.
+Atheist attitudes towards theists in fact cover a broad spectrum.
+
+Most atheists take a "live and let live" attitude.  Unless questioned, they
+will not usually mention their atheism, except perhaps to close friends.  Of
+course, this may be in part because atheism is not "socially acceptable" in
+many countries.
+
+A few atheists are quite anti-religious, and may even try to "convert" others
+when possible.  Historically, such anti-religious atheists have made little
+impact on society outside the Eastern Bloc countries.
+
+(To digress slightly: the Soviet Union was originally dedicated to separation
+of church and state, just like the USA.  Soviet citizens were legally free to
+worship as they wished.  The institution of "state atheism" came about when
+Stalin took control of the Soviet Union and tried to destroy the churches in
+order to gain complete power over the population.)
+
+Some atheists are quite vocal about their beliefs, but only where they see
+religion encroaching on matters which are not its business -- for example,
+the government of the USA.  Such individuals are usually concerned that
+church and state should remain separate.
+
+"But if you don't allow religion to have a say in the running of the state,
+ surely that's the same as state atheism?"
+
+The principle of the separation of church and state is that the state shall
+not legislate concerning matters of religious belief.  In particular, it
+means not only that the state cannot promote one religion at the expense of
+another, but also that it cannot promote any belief which is religious in
+nature.
+
+Religions can still have a say in discussion of purely secular matters.  For
+example, religious believers have historically been responsible for
+encouraging many political reforms.  Even today, many organizations
+campaigning for an increase in spending on foreign aid are founded as
+religious campaigns.  So long as they campaign concerning secular matters,
+and so long as they do not discriminate on religious grounds, most atheists
+are quite happy to see them have their say.
+
+"What about prayer in schools? If there's no God, why do you care if people
+ pray?"
+
+Because people who do pray are voters and lawmakers, and tend to do things
+that those who don't pray can't just ignore.  Also, Christian prayer in
+schools is intimidating to non-Christians, even if they are told that they
+need not join in.  The diversity of religious and non-religious belief means
+that it is impossible to formulate a meaningful prayer that will be
+acceptable to all those present at any public event.
+
+Also, non-prayers tend to have friends and family who pray.  It is reasonable
+to care about friends and family wasting their time, even without other
+motives.
+
+"You mentioned Christians who campaign for increased foreign aid.  What about
+ atheists?  Why aren't there any atheist charities or hospitals?  Don't
+ atheists object to the religious charities?"
+
+There are many charities without religious purpose that atheists can
+contribute to.  Some atheists contribute to religious charities as well, for
+the sake of the practical good they do.  Some atheists even do voluntary work
+for charities founded on a theistic basis.
+
+Most atheists seem to feel that atheism isn't worth shouting about in
+connection with charity.  To them, atheism is just a simple, obvious everyday
+matter, and so is charity.  Many feel that it's somewhat cheap, not to say
+self-righteous, to use simple charity as an excuse to plug a particular set
+of religious beliefs.
+
+To "weak" atheists, building a hospital to say "I do not believe in God" is a
+rather strange idea; it's rather like holding a party to say "Today is not my
+birthday".  Why the fuss?  Atheism is rarely evangelical.
+
+"You said atheism isn't anti-religious.  But is it perhaps a backlash against
+ one's upbringing, a way of rebelling?"
+
+Perhaps it is, for some.  But many people have parents who do not attempt to
+force any religious (or atheist) ideas upon them, and many of those people
+choose to call themselves atheists.
+
+It's also doubtless the case that some religious people chose religion as a
+backlash against an atheist upbringing, as a way of being different.  On the
+other hand, many people choose religion as a way of conforming to the
+expectations of others.
+
+On the whole, we can't conclude much about whether atheism or religion are
+backlash or conformism; although in general, people have a tendency to go
+along with a group rather than act or think independently.
+
+"How do atheists differ from religious people?"
+
+They don't believe in God.  That's all there is to it.
+
+Atheists may listen to heavy metal -- backwards, even -- or they may prefer a
+Verdi Requiem, even if they know the words.  They may wear Hawaiian shirts,
+they may dress all in black, they may even wear orange robes.  (Many
+Buddhists lack a belief in any sort of God.)  Some atheists even carry a copy
+of the Bible around -- for arguing against, of course!
+
+Whoever you are, the chances are you have met several atheists without
+realising it.  Atheists are usually unexceptional in behaviour and
+appearance.
+
+"Unexceptional? But aren't atheists less moral than religious people?"
+
+That depends.  If you define morality as obedience to God, then of course
+atheists are less moral as they don't obey any God.  But usually when one
+talks of morality, one talks of what is acceptable ("right") and unacceptable
+("wrong") behaviour within society.
+
+Humans are social animals, and to be maximally successful they must
+co-operate with each other.  This is a good enough reason to discourage most
+atheists from "anti-social" or "immoral" behaviour, purely for the purposes
+of self-preservation.
+
+Many atheists behave in a "moral" or "compassionate" way simply because they
+feel a natural tendency to empathize with other humans.  So why do they care
+what happens to others?  They don't know, they simply are that way.
+
+Naturally, there are some people who behave "immorally" and try to use
+atheism to justify their actions.  However, there are equally many people who
+behave "immorally" and then try to use religious beliefs to justify their
+actions.  For example:
+
+  "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Jesus Christ
+   came into the world to save sinners...  But for that very reason, I was
+   shown mercy so that in me...  Jesus Christ might display His unlimited
+   patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive
+   eternal life.  Now to the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,
+   be honor and glory forever and ever."
+
+The above quote is from a statement made to the court on February 17th 1992
+by Jeffrey Dahmer, the notorious cannibal serial killer of Milwaukee,
+Wisconsin.  It seems that for every atheist mass-murderer, there is a
+religious mass-murderer.  But what of more trivial morality?
+
+   A survey conducted by the Roper Organization found that behavior
+   deteriorated after "born again" experiences.  While only 4% of respondents
+   said they had driven intoxicated before being "born again," 12% had done
+   so after conversion.  Similarly, 5% had used illegal drugs before
+   conversion, 9% after.  Two percent admitted to engaging in illicit sex
+   before salvation; 5% after.
+                                ["Freethought Today", September 1991, p. 12.]
+
+So it seems that at best, religion does not have a monopoly on moral
+behaviour.
+
+"Is there such a thing as atheist morality?"
+
+If you mean "Is there such a thing as morality for atheists?", then the
+answer is yes, as explained above.  Many atheists have ideas about morality
+which are at least as strong as those held by religious people.
+
+If you mean "Does atheism have a characteristic moral code?", then the answer
+is no.  Atheism by itself does not imply anything much about how a person
+will behave.  Most atheists follow many of the same "moral rules" as theists,
+but for different reasons.  Atheists view morality as something created by
+humans, according to the way humans feel the world 'ought' to work, rather
+than seeing it as a set of rules decreed by a supernatural being.
+
+"Then aren't atheists just theists who are denying God?"
+
+A study by the Freedom From Religion Foundation found that over 90% of the
+atheists who responded became atheists because religion did not work for
+them.  They had found that religious beliefs were fundamentally incompatible
+with what they observed around them.
+
+Atheists are not unbelievers through ignorance or denial; they are
+unbelievers through choice.  The vast majority of them have spent time
+studying one or more religions, sometimes in very great depth.  They have
+made a careful and considered decision to reject religious beliefs.
+
+This decision may, of course, be an inevitable consequence of that
+individual's personality.  For a naturally sceptical person, the choice
+of atheism is often the only one that makes sense, and hence the only
+choice that person can honestly make.
+
+"But don't atheists want to believe in God?"
+
+Atheists live their lives as though there is nobody watching over them.  Many
+of them have no desire to be watched over, no matter how good-natured the
+"Big Brother" figure might be.
+
+Some atheists would like to be able to believe in God -- but so what? Should
+one believe things merely because one wants them to be true?  The risks of
+such an approach should be obvious.  Atheists often decide that wanting to
+believe something is not enough; there must be evidence for the belief.
+
+"But of course atheists see no evidence for the existence of God -- they are
+ unwilling in their souls to see!"
+
+Many, if not most atheists were previously religious.  As has been explained
+above, the vast majority have seriously considered the possibility that God
+exists.  Many atheists have spent time in prayer trying to reach God.
+
+Of course, it is true that some atheists lack an open mind; but assuming that
+all atheists are biased and insincere is offensive and closed-minded.
+Comments such as "Of course God is there, you just aren't looking properly"
+are likely to be viewed as patronizing.
+
+Certainly, if you wish to engage in philosophical debate with atheists it is
+vital that you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are
+being sincere if they say that they have searched for God.  If you are not
+willing to believe that they are basically telling the truth, debate is
+futile.
+
+"Isn't the whole of life completely pointless to an atheist?"
+
+Many atheists live a purposeful life.  They decide what they think gives
+meaning to life, and they pursue those goals.  They try to make their lives
+count, not by wishing for eternal life, but by having an influence on other
+people who will live on.  For example, an atheist may dedicate his life to
+political reform, in the hope of leaving his mark on history.
+
+It is a natural human tendency to look for "meaning" or "purpose" in random
+events.  However, it is by no means obvious that "life" is the sort of thing
+that has a "meaning".
+
+To put it another way, not everything which looks like a question is actually
+a sensible thing to ask.  Some atheists believe that asking "What is the
+meaning of life?" is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of a cup of
+coffee?".  They believe that life has no purpose or meaning, it just is.
+
+"So how do atheists find comfort in time of danger?"
+
+There are many ways of obtaining comfort; from family, friends, or even pets.
+Or on a less spiritual level, from food or drink or TV.
+
+That may sound rather an empty and vulnerable way to face danger, but so
+what?  Should individuals believe in things because they are comforting, or
+should they face reality no matter how harsh it might be?
+
+In the end, it's a decision for the individual concerned.  Most atheists are
+unable to believe something they would not otherwise believe merely because
+it makes them feel comfortable.  They put truth before comfort, and consider
+that if searching for truth sometimes makes them feel unhappy, that's just
+hard luck.
+
+"Don't atheists worry that they might suddenly be shown to be wrong?"
+
+The short answer is "No, do you?"
+
+Many atheists have been atheists for years.  They have encountered many
+arguments and much supposed evidence for the existence of God, but they have
+found all of it to be invalid or inconclusive.
+
+Thousands of years of religious belief haven't resulted in any good proof of
+the existence of God.  Atheists therefore tend to feel that they are unlikely
+to be proved wrong in the immediate future, and they stop worrying about it.
+
+"So why should theists question their beliefs? Don't the same arguments
+ apply?"
+
+No, because the beliefs being questioned are not similar.  Weak atheism is
+the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.  Strong atheism
+is a negative belief.  Theism is a very strong positive belief.
+
+Atheists sometimes also argue that theists should question their beliefs
+because of the very real harm they can cause -- not just to the believers,
+but to everyone else.
+
+"What sort of harm?"
+
+Religion represents a huge financial and work burden on mankind.  It's not
+just a matter of religious believers wasting their money on church buildings;
+think of all the time and effort spent building churches, praying, and so on.
+Imagine how that effort could be better spent.
+
+Many theists believe in miracle healing.  There have been plenty of instances
+of ill people being "healed" by a priest, ceasing to take the medicines
+prescribed to them by doctors, and dying as a result.  Some theists have died
+because they have refused blood transfusions on religious grounds.
+
+It is arguable that the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control -- and
+condoms in particular -- is increasing the problem of overpopulation in many
+third-world countries and contributing to the spread of AIDS world-wide.
+
+Religious believers have been known to murder their children rather than
+allow their children to become atheists or marry someone of a different
+religion.
+
+"Those weren't REAL believers.  They just claimed to be believers as some
+ sort of excuse."
+
+What makes a real believer?  There are so many One True Religions it's hard
+to tell.  Look at Christianity: there are many competing groups, all
+convinced that they are the only true Christians.  Sometimes they even fight
+and kill each other.  How is an atheist supposed to decide who's a REAL
+Christian and who isn't, when even the major Christian churches like the
+Catholic Church and the Church of England can't decide amongst themselves?
+
+In the end, most atheists take a pragmatic view, and decide that anyone who
+calls himself a Christian, and uses Christian belief or dogma to justify his
+actions, should be considered a Christian.  Maybe some of those Christians
+are just perverting Christian teaching for their own ends -- but surely if
+the Bible can be so readily used to support un-Christian acts it can't be
+much of a moral code? If the Bible is the word of God, why couldn't he have
+made it less easy to misinterpret? And how do you know that your beliefs
+aren't a perversion of what your God intended?
+
+If there is no single unambiguous interpretation of the Bible, then why
+should an atheist take one interpretation over another just on your say-so?
+Sorry, but if someone claims that he believes in Jesus and that he murdered
+others because Jesus and the Bible told him to do so, we must call him a
+Christian.
+
+"Obviously those extreme sorts of beliefs should be questioned.  But since
+ nobody has ever proved that God does not exist, it must be very unlikely
+ that more basic religious beliefs, shared by all faiths, are nonsense."
+
+That does not hold, because as was pointed out at the start of this dialogue,
+positive assertions concerning the existence of entities are inherently much
+harder to disprove than negative ones.  Nobody has ever proved that unicorns
+don't exist, but that doesn't make it unlikely that they are myths.
+
+It is therefore much more valid to hold a negative assertion by default than
+it is to hold a positive assertion by default.  Of course, "weak" atheists
+would argue that asserting nothing is better still.
+
+"Well, if atheism's so great, why are there so many theists?"
+
+Unfortunately, the popularity of a belief has little to do with how "correct"
+it is, or whether it "works"; consider how many people believe in astrology,
+graphology, and other pseudo-sciences.
+
+Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in
+gods.  Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the
+people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.
+
+Of course, there's more to religion than that.  In the industrialized world,
+we find people believing in religious explanations of phenomena even when
+there are perfectly adequate natural explanations.  Religion may have started
+as a means of attempting to explain the world, but nowadays it serves other
+purposes as well.
+
+"But so many cultures have developed religions.  Surely that must say
+ something?"
+
+Not really.  Most religions are only superficially similar; for example, it's
+worth remembering that religions such as Buddhism and Taoism lack any sort of
+concept of God in the Christian sense.
+
+Of course, most religions are quick to denounce competing religions, so it's
+rather odd to use one religion to try and justify another.
+
+"What about all the famous scientists and philosophers who have concluded
+ that God exists?"
+
+For every scientist or philosopher who believes in a god, there is one who
+does not.  Besides, as has already been pointed out, the truth of a belief is
+not determined by how many people believe it.  Also, it is important to
+realize that atheists do not view famous scientists or philosophers in the
+same way that theists view their religious leaders.
+
+A famous scientist is only human; she may be an expert in some fields, but
+when she talks about other matters her words carry no special weight.  Many
+respected scientists have made themselves look foolish by speaking on
+subjects which lie outside their fields of expertise.
+
+"So are you really saying that widespread belief in religion indicates
+ nothing?"
+
+Not entirely.  It certainly indicates that the religion in question has
+properties which have helped it so spread so far.
+
+The theory of memetics talks of "memes" -- sets of ideas which can propagate
+themselves between human minds, by analogy with genes.  Some atheists view
+religions as sets of particularly successful parasitic memes, which spread by
+encouraging their hosts to convert others.  Some memes avoid destruction by
+discouraging believers from questioning doctrine, or by using peer pressure
+to keep one-time believers from admitting that they were mistaken.  Some
+religious memes even encourage their hosts to destroy hosts controlled by
+other memes.
+
+Of course, in the memetic view there is no particular virtue associated with
+successful propagation of a meme.  Religion is not a good thing because of
+the number of people who believe it, any more than a disease is a good thing
+because of the number of people who have caught it.
+
+"Even if religion is not entirely true, at least it puts across important
+ messages.  What are the fundamental messages of atheism?"
+
+There are many important ideas atheists promote.  The following are just a
+few of them; don't be surprised to see ideas which are also present in some
+religions.
+
+   There is more to moral behaviour than mindlessly following rules.
+
+   Be especially sceptical of positive claims.
+
+   If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to
+   find it.
+
+   Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.
+
+   Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.
+
+   It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change
+   yourself.
+
+   Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.
+
+   If you must assume something, assume something it's easy to test.
+
+   Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.
+
+and finally (and most importantly):
+
+   All beliefs should be open to question.
+
+Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
+
+
+mathew
diff --git a/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts b/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
index 55daeebe1..5d5c3200b 100644
--- a/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
+++ b/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 import { parse } from '../src/tokenizer'
 import { TokenizeOptions } from '../src/options'
 import { CompileError } from '../src/errors'
+import path from 'path'
+import fs from 'fs/promises'
 
 test('token analysis', () => {
   const cases = [
@@ -98,3 +100,20 @@ test('token analysis', () => {
     }
   }
 })
+
+describe('edge cases', () => {
+  test('long text', async () => {
+    const data = await fs.readFile(
+      path.join(__dirname, './fixtures/20_newsgroups_alt_atheism_51060.txt'),
+      'utf8'
+    )
+    let err = null
+    try {
+      const tokens = parse(data)
+    } catch (e) {
+      console.error(e)
+      err = e
+    }
+    expect(err).toEqual(null)
+  })
+})
diff --git a/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts b/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
index fb787913a..59f71e68e 100644
--- a/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
+++ b/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
@@ -568,6 +568,14 @@ export function createI18n(options: any = {}, VueI18nLegacy?: any): any {
         if (version !== 2) {
           throw createI18nError(I18nErrorCodes.BRIDGE_SUPPORT_VUE_2_ONLY)
         }
+        if (!Vue.prototype.hasOwnProperty('$i18n')) {
+          Object.defineProperty(Vue.prototype, '$i18n', {
+            get() {
+              return this._i18n
+            }
+          })
+        }
+
         Vue.mixin(defineMixinBridge(i18n, _legacyVueI18n))
       }
     })

From 3729ee00b30353349b65e1f29d172d62e26ea7b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: kazuya kawaguchi <kawakazu80@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 19:55:05 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] remove unnecesary code

---
 packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts b/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
index 59f71e68e..18d3f30f1 100644
--- a/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
+++ b/packages/vue-i18n-core/src/i18n.ts
@@ -568,13 +568,6 @@ export function createI18n(options: any = {}, VueI18nLegacy?: any): any {
         if (version !== 2) {
           throw createI18nError(I18nErrorCodes.BRIDGE_SUPPORT_VUE_2_ONLY)
         }
-        if (!Vue.prototype.hasOwnProperty('$i18n')) {
-          Object.defineProperty(Vue.prototype, '$i18n', {
-            get() {
-              return this._i18n
-            }
-          })
-        }
 
         Vue.mixin(defineMixinBridge(i18n, _legacyVueI18n))
       }

From 7fd8cae84117e97a655b76e7f3aa98a729d38b5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Fabian Kranewitter <fabiankranewitter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2021 19:43:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Rewrite readText as an iterative version Fix warning in
 test

---
 packages/message-compiler/src/tokenizer.ts    | 19 +++++++------------
 .../message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts   |  4 ++--
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/packages/message-compiler/src/tokenizer.ts b/packages/message-compiler/src/tokenizer.ts
index 344c662ce..6f76ca1fb 100644
--- a/packages/message-compiler/src/tokenizer.ts
+++ b/packages/message-compiler/src/tokenizer.ts
@@ -438,45 +438,40 @@ export function createTokenizer(
   }
 
   function readText(scnr: Scanner): string {
-    const fn = (buf: string): string => {
+    let buf = ''
+    while (true) {
       const ch = scnr.currentChar()
       if (
         ch === TokenChars.BraceLeft ||
         ch === TokenChars.BraceRight ||
         ch === TokenChars.LinkedAlias ||
+        ch === TokenChars.Pipe ||
         !ch
       ) {
-        return buf
+        break
       } else if (ch === TokenChars.Modulo) {
         if (isTextStart(scnr)) {
           buf += ch
           scnr.next()
-          return fn(buf)
         } else {
-          return buf
+          break
         }
-      } else if (ch === TokenChars.Pipe) {
-        return buf
       } else if (ch === SPACE || ch === NEW_LINE) {
         if (isTextStart(scnr)) {
           buf += ch
           scnr.next()
-          return fn(buf)
         } else if (isPluralStart(scnr)) {
-          return buf
+          break
         } else {
           buf += ch
           scnr.next()
-          return fn(buf)
         }
       } else {
         buf += ch
         scnr.next()
-        return fn(buf)
       }
     }
-
-    return fn('')
+    return buf
   }
 
   function readNamedIdentifier(scnr: Scanner): string {
diff --git a/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts b/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
index 5d5c3200b..62f5d6820 100644
--- a/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
+++ b/packages/message-compiler/test/tokenizer.test.ts
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ import { parse } from '../src/tokenizer'
 import { TokenizeOptions } from '../src/options'
 import { CompileError } from '../src/errors'
 import path from 'path'
-import fs from 'fs/promises'
+import { promises as fs } from 'fs'
 
 test('token analysis', () => {
   const cases = [
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ describe('edge cases', () => {
     )
     let err = null
     try {
-      const tokens = parse(data)
+      parse(data)
     } catch (e) {
       console.error(e)
       err = e