Adam Heath wrote: > /usr/bin/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors. > > /usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor.
But, but, but... How does it work if /usr/bin/vi is an alternative hooked into /usr/bin/editor? What package would own that hook? Just speaking academically since I am really not proposing we change this, would there need to be an vi-editor meta package just for the second level of indirection? And a similar emacs-editor meta package for emacs. And so on for each editor? I think this is too much. > Same for emacs. Agreed on the basis of symmetry. (And I am an emacs user.) But from a pragmatic standpoint I think editor should be something for the untrained masses. Bob
pgpIjAoK8ozzd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
