Hi, Jason McIntyre writes: > shouldn;t it be that we should show the suspend command as > > sus[pend] > > the shortest "s" matches "substitute", right. so we show it as > > s[ubstitute] > > i cannot find any text that describes what "su" *should* match though, > so i'm not sure. logically i'd expect it to match "substitute", since > that is first alphabetically. that's why i think it should be sus[pend], > not sub[stitute]. > > i don;t have any other versions of vi to compare how other systems do > this.
Turns out there is no consistency anywhere. Original vi implements: s su[spend] sub[stitute] nvi (ours and others): s su[spend] elvis: s[ubstitute] (it documents sus[pend] but doesn't actually implement it) vim: s[ubstitute] sus[pend] It looks like nvi tried to mimic original vi at the beginning, but broke the functionality sometime between 1994 and 1996, and nobody noticed over the next 20 years. Seeing as POSIX is unclear and everybody's inconsistent anyway, I'm strongly inclined to just leave things as they are, commit the original diff that documents the current reality, and leave it at that. -- Anthony J. Bentley
