>i'm good with prompter. i didn't know it existed, and wrote my own
>script to do much the same thing a couple of years ago, for use on my
>phone. bringing up vi on a phone's ssh connection is... sub-optimal.
Alright, done!
--Ken
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-w
ken wrote:
> >prompter is what i was thinking of. repl and forw also used it. it was
...
> Yeah, I tried it quickly and it seems simple enough. And people who have
> editor in their profile or use EDITOR/VISUAL won't notice a change.
...
> >i think it should still be prompter, so that we ha
Ken wrote:
> That sounds reasonable to me. Thoughts, objections? David, I saw
> your reply and it sounds like you'd be okay with that, unless I
> misunderstood you.
I'm fine with it.
David
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
>> ... it turns out the default editor back in the day (if you didn't
>> configure one with mhconfig) was "prompter", which would give you a
>> kind of very simple message input interface (but not exactly like you
>> describe).
>
>prompter is what i was thinking of. repl and forw also used it. it w
Ken Hornstein wrote:
... it turns out the default editor back in the day (if you didn't
configure one with mhconfig) was "prompter", which would give you a
kind of very simple message input interface (but not exactly like you
describe).
prompter is what i was thinking of. repl and forw also u
Ken wrote:
> That suggests to me that maybe
> the default editor (in absence of any environment variables) should be
> prompter, actually
My first reaction was negative, but after looking at the man page and giving
it a quick try, it might not be so bad. Someone should volunteer to live with
it
>i have not run comp without first setting VISUAL for at least two
>decades, but when i used to do this, it would print a message like "type
>your message below, and then hit control-D" and then read from standard
>input. when did that change to requiring an external editor? perhaps
>that's whe
Ralph wrote:
> That reminds me: Debian, and Ubuntu, have /usr/bin/editor and
Fedora doesn't.
> sensible-editor(1) that programs can fall back on.
That Debian package is available (sensible-utils) on Fedora. If a suitable
editor can't be found via VISUAL, EDITOR, etc., it falls back to nano.
I
Ken Hornstein writes:
>As always, please report feedback to nmh-workers@nongnu.org
I built, checked, installed and used, all without incident.
I'm using Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation release 6.9.
Norman Shapiro
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Hi Andy,
> I generally don't set VISUAL or EDITOR unless I absolutely have to
> (e.g. on Ubuntu which defaults to nano)
That reminds me: Debian, and Ubuntu, have /usr/bin/editor and
sensible-editor(1) that programs can fall back on. What that is can be
set system-wide, or per user.
https://manne
Thus said Paul Vixie on Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:55:41 -0700:
> i have not run comp without first setting VISUAL for at least two
> decades, but when i used to do this, it would print a message like
> "type your message below, and then hit control-D" and then read from
> standard input. when
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
why would our build or install dependency list include any editor?
Fedora's is changing from an install dependency on /usr/bin/vi to a
Suggests one. I haven't checked what the other distributions do. AIUI
the idea is a user won't see
$ comp
unable to exec vi
Ralph wrote:
> I'd prefer that if they don't have vi installed then they don't gain it.
Fedora's slogans include "Less setup". So I can see it wanting to avoid your
comp fail scenario.
If we want to do anything, nmh could add support to install-mh to ask the user
what editor what they want to u
Hi Paul,
> i set VISUAL to /usr/local/bin/jove,
Don't forget this is a public mailing list.
> why would our build or install dependency list include any editor?
Fedora's is changing from an install dependency on /usr/bin/vi to a
Suggests one. I haven't checked what the other distributions do.
14 matches
Mail list logo
