On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:30:35AM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > 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. >
morning. i think that makes sense too. jmc
