On 4-Nov-2005 1:49, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Michael Schaap wrote:
>
>
>> On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>>>
>>>
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Michael Schaap wrote:
> On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
> >
> >> there is a bug in this version:
> >>
> >> Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
> >> enter:
> >>
On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>
>> there is a bug in this version:
>>
>> Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
>> enter:
>>
>> vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
>>
>> and
At 00:37 2005-10-26 -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Arend-Jan Westhoff wrote:
>
>> Could this for once mean a positive press for text mounts? Or has it
>> something to do with NTFS <-> FAT32 ?
>
>The former is unlikely. The latter is possible.
If the latter is true I think t
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> You're doing something differently here, perhaps in vim itself.
For example, the following?
:set nobackup nowritebackup
If you disable both backup and writebackup, it leaves the file
name unchanged when you write to it. So there's a workaround if
you don't care about th
On Oct 25 12:11, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> >No, it doesn't. I just tried it in 6.3 and this behaviour is the same
> >as in 6.4.
>
> ??
>
> % pwd
> /cygdrive/c/temp/test
> % ls
> % touch x
> % ls -li
> 20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None 0 Oct 25 12:10 x
> % vim
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Arend-Jan Westhoff wrote:
> Could this for once mean a positive press for text mounts? Or has it
> something to do with NTFS <-> FAT32 ?
The former is unlikely. The latter is possible.
> How come that if I have text mounts the edit action in the preceding
> procedure only a
> PS Speaking of filename completion: Windows can be configured to use TAB as
> cmd file and directory expansion character. I do find the cmd filename
> completion behaviour more convenient than the default bash version. It is
> usually
> not difficult to organize a directory so that TAB or SHIF
At 15:32 2005-10-24 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Oct 20 14:16, Shankar Unni wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>>
>> >>Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
>> >>enter:
>> >>
>> >>vim x.sh (
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, it doesn't. I just tried it in 6.3 and this behaviour is the same
as in 6.4.
??
% pwd
/cygdrive/c/temp/test
% ls
% touch x
% ls -li
20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None 0 Oct 25 12:10 x
% vim X
% ls -li
total 1
20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None
On Oct 20 14:16, Shankar Unni wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>
> >>Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
> >>enter:
> >>
> >>vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
> >>
> >>and write it back
Shankar Unni wrote:
> But I think it's worth mentioning that 6.3 doesn't do this (change the
> case of the name when writing back). It overwrites the old file when
> writing back, thus preserving its case.
More to the point, the windows version of vim 6.4 doesn't do
this, either. So there is some
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any modification, the file will be renamed even
to x.sh.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:26:58PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>>>there is a bug in this version:
>>>
>>>Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
>>>ent
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
> >there is a bug in this version:
> >
> >Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
> >enter:
> >
> >vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
> >
> >and wr
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
>there is a bug in this version:
>
>Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
>enter:
>
>vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
>
>and write it back after any modification, the file will be renamed even
Hi all,
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ).
If you enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any modification, the file will be
renamed even to x.sh. This behavior is very nasty if such
file is used by pr
17 matches
Mail list logo
