Subject: Re: bin/17546: vi bug fixes and extensions
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 07/11/2002 08:58:26
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 06:06:49PM -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> At Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:14:30 +0000 (UTC), "gabriel rosenkoetter" wrote:
> > Imho, adding features to vi(1) is not appropriate. If you want a
> > more featureful vi-like editor, use pkgsrc/editors/vim. As it
> > stands, nvi is a (nearly) bug-for-bug copy of real (encumbered)
> > vi(1).
> nvi has _lots_ of features over and above traditional vi. (tildeop is
> the one that i use the most...)
nvi behaves the same way ALMOST all the time, I've spotted a few
differences - generally the nvi behaviour is better.
OTOH I sort of prefer the undo-redo - used to see what you've just
> IMO, it's quite alright to add features... just don't enable them by
> default and make sure they don't conflict with existing
Absolutely - my 'matchchras' for % is adding an option so that the
traditional; behaviour will work.
> But anyway, yes, this should probably be run by the folks maintaining
Yes - but a netbsd bug isn't a bad placeholder for the information.
I compared thenetbsd 'nvi' source with the 1.79 that can be downloaded
- there are quite a few changes, many because netbsd is much more
particular about fixing compiler warning.
However there are a few bug fixes lurking.
David Laight: email@example.com