On 4/23/07, Gene Kwiecinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I can't think of any valid reason why one lonely user - me for
instance
>>- would want to fire up several instances of vim to edit the same
file.
>It can be. For example, in LNX user can edit file in text console,
>then switch to X11 and then start editor again to edit the same file,
>forgetting that other instance of VIM already launched. I in this case
>just do "killall vim"(or "killall -9 vim", depending on mood).
I'd be seriously uncomfortable with that as a "feature". Imagine
absentmindedly editing the same file 2x or more. Make some changes in
one instance, make different changes in another instance, save/quit the
first, save/quit the second, trash all the edits made in the first
instance.
In the orininal post, I wrote about the feature where two+ instances
of vim show and merge changes made by other instances. With
such "collaboration" enabled, the 2nd instance would show and merge
changes made by 1st instance, and 1st instance would absorb, merge
and show changes made by 2nd instance. In this scenario, loss of
edits does not happen. So I don't underastand why you say you are
against it if it avoids exactly what you cited as unwanted ?
Yakov Lerner wrote
-- Ability of N instances of vim to absorb, merge and show changes
to the same file made by other running vim instances
Yakov
