> i get no syntax hilighting at all (the 'file ends here, so
> we'll show a tilde from here own down' is blue but that's all
> that's colored).
from the docs (place in .vimrc):
""" Colour support and syntax highlighting """
" Some systems have a terminfo entry f
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000, will trillich wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:00:15AM -0700, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > If you want vim to be really useful you need the vim-rt package as well.
> > I suspect that tips the balance.
>
> okay, so i
> # apt-get install vim vim-rt
> and vi still points to
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:56:16PM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:00:15AM -0700, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> > If you want vim to be really useful you need the vim-rt package as well.
> > I suspect that tips the balance.
>
> okay, so i
> # apt-get install vim vim-rt
> and
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:00:15AM -0700, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> If you want vim to be really useful you need the vim-rt package as well.
> I suspect that tips the balance.
okay, so i
# apt-get install vim vim-rt
and vi still points to elvis, so i
# update-alternatives --install `wh
> what's this dependency thing listed for vim-rt? seems odd:
>
> recommended:
> vim
> suggested:
> exuberant-ctags
> or elvis
>
> eh? elvis?
>
vim-rt is basically all the vim support files. vim supports ctags, but it
doesn't include its own tags file generator. thus you need e
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:00:15AM -0700, Pann McCuaig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 23:56, will trillich wrote:
> > according to packages.debian.org/vim:
> >
> > stable18% vim 5.6.070-1 (309.4k)
> > Vi IMproved - enhanced vi editor
> >
> > according to packages.debian.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 23:56, will trillich wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 12:51:24PM -0500, Jeff Howie wrote:
> > I cut my teeth on vim (4.x or so). and haven't looked back.
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:59:06AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> > > emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 06:44:26PM +0200, Paul Seelig wrote:
> RefTeX is besides AUCTeX the second best reason to use any kind of
> Emacsen for one's LaTeX editing. The first best reason for it is
> AUCTeX... ;-)
>
> I've learned LaTeX a few years ago with vim actually but after having
> become
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 06:16:48AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> >
> > Is there anything like reftex for vim?
>
> i haven't the faintest idea. not much of a tex person, here.
I do a lot of LaTeX in Vim. What's reftex?
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"...the word HACK is
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 09:25:53AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I still use nvi on occasion 'cause it will show me ^M's in a file and
> >it's easier to `nvi file` than to look up how to get vim to do it. ;->
>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2000 at 10:10:35AM +0200, Andre Berger wrote:
> will trillich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
> >
> > how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> > which does better syntax highlighting? which makes your teeth
> > whiter?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pann McCuaig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I still use nvi on occasion 'cause it will show me ^M's in a file and
>it's easier to `nvi file` than to look up how to get vim to do it. ;->
vim -b file (binary mode). Also handy to edit binaries to change
hardcoded string
will trillich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
>
> how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> which does better syntax highlighting? which makes your teeth
> whiter?
Is there anything like reftex for vim?
-- Andre
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 12:51:24PM -0500, Jeff Howie wrote:
> I cut my teeth on vim (4.x or so). and haven't looked back.
>
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:59:06AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> > emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
> > how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
>
Subject: Re: Vim vs Elvis -- was "Mutt's Editor"
Date: Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:50:54PM -0500
In reply to:will trillich
Quoting will trillich([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Bud Rogers wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, will trillich wrote:
> >
Will
will trillich wrote:
>
> Bud Rogers wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, will trillich wrote:
> >
> > > how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> > > which does better syntax highlighting?
> >
> > I don't know about relative resource use, but vim's syntax highlighting is
> > the b
Bud Rogers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, will trillich wrote:
>
> > how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> > which does better syntax highlighting?
>
> I don't know about relative resource use, but vim's syntax highlighting is
> the best I've seen. Ever. Anywhere.
i'm p
I cut my teeth on vim (4.x or so). and haven't looked back.
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:59:06AM -0500, will trillich wrote:
> emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
> how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
Not sure about that, but I would assume that vi(elvis) would be on
the
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, will trillich wrote:
> how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> which does better syntax highlighting?
I don't know about relative resource use, but vim's syntax highlighting is
the best I've seen. Ever. Anywhere.
--
Bud Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:59, will trillich wrote:
> emacs fans, please turn the other cheek--
>
> how does vim compare to elvis? which is the resource hog?
> which does better syntax highlighting? which makes your teeth
> whiter?
FWIW, I was an early (early 90's) user of elvis. I switched to v
On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 01:15:45PM +1100, Damon Muller wrote:
> Quoth Nate Bargmann,
> > In ~./mutt/muttrc check this line:
> >
> > set editor=/usr/bin/vim
>
> You may also want to include the contents of
> /usr/share/doc/vim/examples/mail in your ยท/.vimrc - it does cool things
> like colour sig
21 matches
Mail list logo
