Re: new nvi option: expandtab

["Arnaud Lacombe" <lacombar%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Luke Mewburn <lukem%netbsd.org@localhost> 
wrote:
> 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> 
> wrote:
>  | > (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 ;-)

 - Arnaud