Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On 14-Jun-99, 02:06 (CDT), Brock Rozen <brozen@torah.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 1999 at 12:22, Joseph Carter wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> > #!/bin/bash
> > shopt -s execfail
> > exec ${VISUAL:-${EDITOR:-editor}} "$@"
>
> Yes, I saw this. But I didn't see, like the following two lines,
> something that supported pico OUTSIDE of the VISUAL or EDITOR
> environment variables.
>
> I would still like to see a "hard-coded" line for pico, like there is
> for ae or vi. That's all I wanted.
Why? Are we supposed to list every possible editor? If you want pico to
be your default, set EDITOR or VISUAL. What's so hard about that? If
you want pico to be the system wide default (god forbid), set EDITOR in
/etc/profile and /etc/cshrc (or whatever it's called).
Since there is no technical reason to mention pico explicitely, the
only reason I can see is that you think pico is being discriminated
against, because it's not explicitly mentioned. Tough. By that standard,
so are joe, emacs, ee, jed, etc. etc. etc. Besides, if pico is packaged
(which you can do locally, if you so desire), then it should provide a
/usr/bin/editor alternative.
Steve
Reply to: