Re: vi startup (not vim?)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sven Guckes wrote: > * Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 15:33]: > > > > one of the annoying things about vim-users is that most > > > > of them don't know much about vi, and tend to ascribe > > > > lots of things to vim that are standard in vi. > > > > > > Hey, Sven, calm down, will ya? ;) > > > > He's tamer than he once was > > i'm WHAT? > > > (we don't often quarrel anymore - I > > seem to recall this was once an issue) > > now what did we quarrel about? who won? comp.editors (I seem to recall that I did). -- T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
* Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 15:33]: > > > one of the annoying things about vim-users is that most > > > of them don't know much about vi, and tend to ascribe > > > lots of things to vim that are standard in vi. > > > > Hey, Sven, calm down, will ya? ;) > > He's tamer than he once was i'm WHAT? > (we don't often quarrel anymore - I > seem to recall this was once an issue) now what did we quarrel about? who won? Sven [checking the mail logs]
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 02:46:16PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote: > and you don't want to share you #editor value with us? hint hint > besides, you might want to upgrade to vim 6.1 ... > vi launched from a shell says: :ve VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled May 1 2000 16:14:28) Included patches: 1-62, 64-70 Compiled by wichert@cloud, with (+) or without (-): from inside mutt: :ve version 1.79 (10/23/96) The CSRG, University of California, Berkeley. How can I tell what my $editor (or #editor) is set to? Is this a .bashrc thing or a .muttrc? Obviosly I am running a different editor from inside of mutt ... Is there a way in .muttrc to specify /usr/bin/vi as my editor? When I execute "!which vi" from mutts index, I do get /usr/bin/vi just as I do from my bash prompt. aloha, dave
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, darren chamberlain wrote:
> * Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 09:04]:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, darren chamberlain wrote:
> >
> > > vim has a :version command, which other vi clones don't seem to; vim
> >
> > :ve is standard.
> > (:version is also recognized by all of the vi's that I recall -
> > including elvis).
>
> OK, I stand corrected. However, :ve will still tell him whether he's
> using vim or not, eh?
yes (I haven't noticed any counter examples - its version message is
pretty verbose - even when presumably running in vi-compatibility mode,
which can be a problem in itself)
> > > with cp set will still respond to :version, while elvis will not
> > > (well, it will, but with an error ;).
> >
> > one of the annoying things about vim-users is that most of them don't
> > know much about vi, and tend to ascribe lots of things to vim that are
> > standard in vi.
>
> Hey, Sven, calm down, will ya? ;)
He's tamer than he once was (we don't often quarrel anymore - I seem to
recall this was once an issue)
> Actually, though, my experience has been the opposite: people who are
> vim users tend to think that vim features are standard vi features, and
> get upset when, say, ga doesn't do what they expect. A lot of the vi
> evangelists I know are actually vim evalgelists, and it annoys me, much
> as it (apparently) annoys you.
I do notice those ("ga" not working), but they aren't as common as they
used to be (Redhat distributes vim ;-)
> > (don't be like most vim-users)
>
> Actually, I'm not. In fact, on many of the boxen I use regularly, I'm
> not a vim user at all. I was unaware that other vi's supported :ve; I
> thought I remembered elvis, at least, not supporting it.
perhaps very old elvis (but that would be very old - 1.8 has a version
message; I don't recall what 1.7 did).
--
T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
* Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 09:04]: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, darren chamberlain wrote: > > > vim has a :version command, which other vi clones don't seem to; vim > > :ve is standard. > (:version is also recognized by all of the vi's that I recall - > including elvis). OK, I stand corrected. However, :ve will still tell him whether he's using vim or not, eh? > > with cp set will still respond to :version, while elvis will not > > (well, it will, but with an error ;). > > one of the annoying things about vim-users is that most of them don't > know much about vi, and tend to ascribe lots of things to vim that are > standard in vi. Hey, Sven, calm down, will ya? ;) Actually, though, my experience has been the opposite: people who are vim users tend to think that vim features are standard vi features, and get upset when, say, ga doesn't do what they expect. A lot of the vi evangelists I know are actually vim evalgelists, and it annoys me, much as it (apparently) annoys you. > (don't be like most vim-users) Actually, I'm not. In fact, on many of the boxen I use regularly, I'm not a vim user at all. I was unaware that other vi's supported :ve; I thought I remembered elvis, at least, not supporting it. (darren) -- Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith. -- Paul Tillich
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, darren chamberlain wrote: > vim has a :version command, which other vi clones don't seem to; vim :ve is standard. (:version is also recognized by all of the vi's that I recall - including elvis). > with cp set will still respond to :version, while elvis will not (well, > it will, but with an error ;). one of the annoying things about vim-users is that most of them don't know much about vi, and tend to ascribe lots of things to vim that are standard in vi. (don't be like most vim-users) -- T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
* Dave Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 12:24]: > I think I have narrowed down the issue I am > experiencing to being mutt specific. > > When I am composing / editing a messge in mutt, it > seems that my .vimrc is not being fully read, if at > all. Also, vim-specific features like tab expansion > do not work (that's one I use a lot). > > Is there a way to tweak the way mutt lauches vi to get > these features to run in a 'vimmish' way? > > I am running debian woody - vim version 5.6.70. If I > just type vi from a command prompt on the same box, I > get full vim; .vimrc mappings and tab-expansion works > fine. > > It is only when mutt starts the editor that I seem to > be in a 'vi compatability' mode. and you don't want to share you #editor value with us? hint hint besides, you might want to upgrade to vim 6.1 ... Sven ["and this sig's for you!"] -- Note to experienced users: Please don't encourage anti-support behavior. Don't try to answer questions from users who don't provide the necessary information. Guessing what they did is an incredible waste of time. (DJB)
Re: vi startup (not vim?)
* Dave Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-09-18 08:23]: > Is there a way to tweak the way mutt lauches vi to get these features > to run in a 'vimmish' way? To what is $editor set? If it is set to 'vi', then you might be getting either vim in compatible mode, or not vim (i.e., the default vi on your box). > I am running debian woody - vim version 5.6.70. If I just type vi > from a command prompt on the same box, I get full vim; .vimrc > mappings and tab-expansion works fine. Debian's default vi is elvis (or at least it was as of 2.2); "type vi" or "which vi" will tell you what is executed when you type "vi". Chances are that it is not what mutt is executing, due to search path differences, or shell functions/aliases, or something similar. Under bash, "type vi" will tell you if you are executing an alias or function, while "which vi" does not; type might be supported by other shells as well, but I'm unsure. > It is only when mutt starts the editor that I seem to be in a 'vi > compatability' mode. vim has a :version command, which other vi clones don't seem to; vim with cp set will still respond to :version, while elvis will not (well, it will, but with an error ;). (darren) -- I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. -- Vance Petree
