On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Bob Proulx wrote: > As I read the original bug report and apply my own spin onto it I see > the original poster was concerned that a user invoking /usr/bin/editor > is probably not wanting either of the traditional vi or emacs editors. > They are probably a user that wants a simpler to use editor. Perhaps > something more like 'nano' or 'ee' than like either vi or emacs. > (Note that emacs does not supply an alternative for /usr/bin/editor.) > I personally would not have had either elvis or vim supply an > alternative for /usr/bin/editor.
/usr/bin/vi should be an alternative for vi-compatible editors. /usr/bin/vi should then be an alternative that is hooked into /usr/bin/editor. Same for emacs.
