[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Vi and Emacs

On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:03:37AM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> ?smund ?deg?rd <aa@simula.no> [2002-08-12 17:18:31 +0200]:
> > If your version of vi is "vim" as it should be, position yourself at the
> > beginning of the paragraph and use gq}
> Don't get me started on how vim is not a proper alternative
> replacement for vi.  It is not.  If you want 'vim' then type in vim.
> Or fix vim to be keystroke compatible with vi by default and have an
> option to enable vim-mode.

Have you tried commenting out 'set nocompatible' in /etc/vim/vimrc?

(Yes, I call vim as 'vi' in non-compatibility mode. This is because I
work on a lot of different Unix systems, and don't have vim on all of
them; I want to get a sensible editor in one step on all of them without
having to go "aargh, command not found" and correct 'vim' to 'vi', and
similarly I want my editor to be as nice as possible when vim is
available. It doesn't bother me that some of the keystrokes differ,
because really it's blatantly obvious from the appearance when one is
using vim and I can adjust for this long before I hit the corner cases
where the keystrokes differ.)

> Sorry.  While that used to be true before alternatives (and vim or
> elvis or editorxyz) it is not true any longer.  Now you will never be
> able to tell if you are calling vi or if you are calling something
> that is masquerading as vi through alternatives.

Sit me in front of any of the vi alternatives I've seen and I'll tell
you which it is without having to touch the keyboard, just from what's
on the screen.


Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: