[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: new nvi option: expandtab
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Luke Mewburn <lukem%netbsd.org@localhost>
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 08:25:07PM -0500, Arnaud Lacombe wrote:
> | On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Luke Mewburn <lukem%netbsd.org@localhost>
> | > (I originally called it "expandtabs", then noticed that vim(1)
> | > has an "expandtab" option that sets similar behaviour.)
> | >
> | > thoughts?
> | is it needed to add bloat to the base system ?
> Just over 2 KiB extra isn't "bloat":
keep adding KiB and you get MiB ...
> size /usr/bin/vi build/vi
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 328630 2780 2848 334258 519b2 /usr/bin/vi
> 330831 2788 2848 336467 52253 build/vi
> (As a comparison, vim on a Linux FC8 i386 box is 1725578 bytes)
> | always install vim(1).
> That sort of claim --
> "don't add [small yet useful] features to a base tool inspired by
the "[small yet useful]" is purely subjective and emotive diversion too :)
> a third-party product; install third-party product instead"
> could be used for most changes made to NetBSD.
> It serves as a good emotive diversion, no more.
I don't like to reinvent the wheel, or at least, try not to.
> Many of the features I've added over the years to NetBSD have been
> inspired from elsewhere. In general, I've received nothing but
> overwhelming support for adding such features.
> | The underlying question would be "Do we want nvi to concurrence vim(1)
> | feature-wise or do we want to keep something minimal, enough for
> | everyday administration task ?"
> "Real men edit files with ed(1) [cat(1). toggle switches] ?"
Then I'm not.
> nvi has many features over "traditional" vi, including split screen editing.
> Are they mandatory? Arguably no.
> Are they useful? Yes.
> Did they increase the code size? Yes.
Is there a switch to build a *minimal* vi(1), AFAIK, no, so it makes
those features mandatory, not optional. If there is a compile-time
switch to get a minimal vi, and that added code have no cost on the
mandatory part, then fine.
> This was a feature that I've wanted for a long time.
> I solicited private feedback, and only got "yes please" responses.
Sorry for not following the crowd :/ you asked for thoughts, I gave
you mine, period.
I'll stop feeding the editor troll here ;-)
Main Index |
Thread Index |