Re: switching to vim-tiny for standard vi?
su, 2005-12-18 kello 14:57 -0500, Joey Hess kirjoitti:
> Yeah, I understand the feeling (coming at it from the exact opposite
> side). It would be helpful if there were an analysis of the major differences
> somewhere; the ones I am most aware of incude:
I'm not personally very interested in this. If the size of vim-tiny is
not bigger than nvi, I really couldn't care less which one is the
default. Either is good enough as a vi clone for base; the
incompatibilities are small enough not to matter for that case. I don't
want to spend any effort (again, personally) in convincing people to
switch their preferred editor, or preferred vi clone.
That being said, I'd like to point out the minor error in the list you
wrote so far:
> - vim supports multiple levels of undo; in nvi the second undo undoes your
In nvi, to undo more than one level, you use the "repeat last edit"
command (bound to period); "u" undoes an undo (and period after that
repeats, so undoes further undos). For some people this is quite
logical, and it drives other people nuts.
> IIRC the reason we have a vi in base, and at priority important at that
> is because of the definition in policy that:
> Important programs, including those which one would expect to
> find on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an
> experienced Unix person who found it missing would say "What on
> earth is going on, where is `foo'?", it must be an `important'
> Which of course includes a vi. (Note that the paragraph goes on to explicitly
> rule out emacs.)
In the name of reducing base's size, I would support a policy change
here, excempting vi clones, but I suspect I'd be shouted down.
Personally, I think "standard" would be the appropriate priority for for
the vi clone.
Fundamental truth #2: Attitude is usually more important than skills.