Previously Paul Mackinney wrote:
> What would be helpful is a README.Debian file in /usr/doc/vim that
> alerts the user to the existence of /etc/vim/vimrc and its nice set of
> potential customizations. I had overlooked the vim stuff in /etc, but I
> have learned to check the /usr/doc directory.
On 01-Jan-02, 18:06 (CST), Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, vim is higher precedence than nvi.
Ack. That's no longer true. Sorry.
Steve
Wichert Akkerman declaimed:
> Previously Caleb Shay wrote:
> > I second this. For example, at the bottom of /etc/vim/vimrc there are
> > several lines commented out "as they cause vim to behave a lot different
> > from regular vi". However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
> > default vi
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > Is it not possible to create a "vi" wrapper script which
> > contains something like the following?
>
> That doesn't make any difference since that is implied when you invoke
> vim as vi.
Bah. But you know how do
Previously Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Is it not possible to create a "vi" wrapper script which
> contains something like the following?
That doesn't make any difference since that is implied when you invoke
vim as vi.
Wichert.
--
_
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:40:11 +0100
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now they're only enabled for a few specific filetypes
> (word-wrapping for emails for example). I doubt it's possible
> to figure out how vim is invoked in the scripts and change
> behaviour on that.
Is it not p
Previously Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> Because it's *EVIL* (hello Wichert ;) )
Ook gelukkig nieuwjaar Miquel :)
> Wichert, would it be possible to only enable the line-wrapping
> auto-inserting syntax-highlighting coffee-making mode when vim is
> invoked as "vim" and leave it out when invoked
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would like to see more user feedback on Debian's settings of the
>VIM editor. Currently, two important features are disabled in the
>default configurations: Syntax highlighting and special intending
>schemes. The question i
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 02:56:58PM -0800, Caleb Shay wrote:
> I second this. For example, at the bottom of /etc/vim/vimrc there are
> several lines commented out "as they cause vim to behave a lot different
> from regular vi". However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
> default vi when yo
On 01-Jan-02, 17:22 (CST), Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Caleb Shay wrote:
>
> > However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
> > default vi when you install,
>
> Only true if you install nvi (or some other higher-precedence vi clone),
> which isn't required. (g)vim is the only
Caleb Shay wrote:
> However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
> default vi when you install,
Only true if you install nvi (or some other higher-precedence vi clone),
which isn't required. (g)vim is the only vi-like editor I have installed.
Craig
Previously Caleb Shay wrote:
> I second this. For example, at the bottom of /etc/vim/vimrc there are
> several lines commented out "as they cause vim to behave a lot different
> from regular vi". However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
> default vi when you install, so why not enable so
I second this. For example, at the bottom of /etc/vim/vimrc there are
several lines commented out "as they cause vim to behave a lot different
from regular vi". However, as was pointed out below, vim is NOT the
default vi when you install, so why not enable some more of it's better
features. Aft
Previously Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Why do people insist on installing 'vim' as 'vi'? It isn't vi, and
> while I'm sure it's a perfectly reasonable editor, I've found if
> fairly disconcerting when I've stumbled onto a system where vim was
> masquerading as vi. Why not just install it as 'vim', use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (dman) writes:
> It does, depending on the environment. If many users of a system have
> used "normal" vi for a long time, and you want to convince them to
> install vim instead, it better behave the way they expect.
Why do people insist on installing 'vim' as 'vi'? It isn't v
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
| Hello,
|
| I would like to see more user feedback on Debian's settings of the
| VIM editor. Currently, two important features are disabled in the
| default configurations: Syntax highlighting and special intending
| schemes. The quest
Previously Eduard Bloch wrote:
> NOTE: this is not a start of a new holy war. I do not ask for giving
> vim's alternatives-entry a higher priority or so. I just want to use all
> VIM's features when I initially install it, without looking into my
> big config to enable intending or editing the vimr
Hello,
I would like to see more user feedback on Debian's settings of the
VIM editor. Currently, two important features are disabled in the
default configurations: Syntax highlighting and special intending
schemes. The question is: why?
Some (influent) people want to make VIM behave as the "normal
18 matches
Mail list logo
