Hi Christian and Claudio,
Christian Weisgerber wrote on Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 09:49:21PM -:
> On 2018-02-07, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:28:42PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>> while trying to fix the documentation of screen splitting in the vi(1)
>>> manual page, jmc@
On 2018-02-07, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:28:42PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> while trying to fix the documentation of screen splitting in the vi(1)
>> manual page, jmc@ suggested to stop documenting it at all. I like
>> the idea because splitting is useless and confusi
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 07:28:42PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while trying to fix the documentation of screen splitting in the vi(1)
> manual page, jmc@ suggested to stop documenting it at all. I like
> the idea because splitting is useless and confusing and the already
> excessively l
Hi,
while trying to fix the documentation of screen splitting in the vi(1)
manual page, jmc@ suggested to stop documenting it at all. I like
the idea because splitting is useless and confusing and the already
excessively large documentation profits from simplification.
Rationale:
1. vi screen
Ingo Schwarze writes:
> > and the USD docs to update. so a man page fix will not suffice.
>
> I wouldn't bother. They are not installed, and the base system
> doesn't even provide tools to process them. If we ever decide
> to do anything with them, they will require a full check of accuracy
> any
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 12:05:47AM GMT, trondd wrote:
> On Sat, February 3, 2018 4:28 pm, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> >
> >> a good way to do it without adding verbiage would be to not document it!
> >> if it really is a crappy quirk, let's just leave it out then.
> >
> > I actually like that idea, it m
On Sat, February 3, 2018 4:28 pm, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
>> a good way to do it without adding verbiage would be to not document it!
>> if it really is a crappy quirk, let's just leave it out then.
>
> I actually like that idea, it makes the long list of EX COMMANDS
> a bit simpler, making the rele
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 10:28:20PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
> > a good way to do it without adding verbiage would be to not document it!
> > if it really is a crappy quirk, let's just leave it out then.
>
> I actually like that idea, it makes the long list of EX COMMANDS
> a bit simpler, mak
Hi Jason,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 08:52:16PM +:
> hmm. not that i entirely agree with this sentiment but fair enough,
> i will look at updating the USD docs.
Thanks. Don't waste your time on that until after commit, of course.
> a good way to do it without adding verbi
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 09:28:11PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 07:23:59PM +:
> > On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 08:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> >> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:41:01PM +:
>
> >>> can of worms
Hi Jason,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 07:23:59PM +:
> On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 08:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:41:01PM +:
>>> can of worms, there's still stuff like :exusage
>> I think that can remain as it is. It
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 08:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:41:01PM +:
>
> > personally i still think it would be simpler to only list these commands
> > once, but note which subset can take a capital letter (and what that
> >
Hi Jason,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:41:01PM +:
> personally i still think it would be simpler to only list these commands
> once, but note which subset can take a capital letter (and what that
> means).
I seems you are right, amybe i should believe you the first time
yo
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 05:26:34PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Jason, hi Anthony,
>
evening.
> Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +:
>
> > ok, but it does not currently say that. hence the original post:
> > [Vi]i[sual]
> > that seems an obvious mistake, as not
Hi Jason, hi Anthony,
Jason McIntyre wrote on Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 02:52:26PM +:
> ok, but it does not currently say that. hence the original post:
> [Vi]i[sual]
> that seems an obvious mistake, as noted in the original post.
That section of the manual is full of lies in multiple respe
On Sat, Feb 03, 2018 at 03:00:15AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Jason McIntyre writes:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:17:11PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > > trondd writes:
> > > > The manpage for vi(1) has a small error for the :Visual/:visual
> > > > command.
> > The
> > > > 'V' c
Jason McIntyre writes:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:17:11PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > trondd writes:
> > > The manpage for vi(1) has a small error for the :Visual/:visual command.
> The
> > > 'V' can be capital or lowercase, followed by an 'i' and optionally 'sual'
> . Bu
> > > t
> > >
When running in ex-mode it sets itself in vi-mode.
When running in vi-mode it's basically an alias to the ex and edit
commands. This means that an uppercase first letter splits the screen
in two.
Personally I find this rather confusing, since we overload the function
to mean two different things b
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 08:17:11PM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> trondd writes:
> > The manpage for vi(1) has a small error for the :Visual/:visual command.
> > The
> > 'V' can be capital or lowercase, followed by an 'i' and optionally 'sual'.
> > Bu
> > t
> > the manpage shows the command
trondd writes:
> The manpage for vi(1) has a small error for the :Visual/:visual command. The
> 'V' can be capital or lowercase, followed by an 'i' and optionally 'sual'. Bu
> t
> the manpage shows the command as [Vi]i[sual] instead of [Vv]i[sual].
This reveals a problem with the manpage. Everywh
The manpage for vi(1) has a small error for the :Visual/:visual command. The
'V' can be capital or lowercase, followed by an 'i' and optionally 'sual'. But
the manpage shows the command as [Vi]i[sual] instead of [Vv]i[sual].
The usage text in vi confirms the correct syntax (as does the roff
docum
21 matches
Mail list logo