wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) (11/15/89)
SEX!!! ;-} Now that I have your attention............. (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which allows "vi" to display various information, e.g., the filename, time, and whether I am in the insert mode or in the command mode, at the top of the screen. ** * ** ** Saleem Wali * wali%tron.UUCP@umbc3.UMBC.EDU ** ** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job ** ** * **
wyle@inf.ethz.ch (Mitchell Wyle) (11/15/89)
In article <456@tron.UUCP> wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: > (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which allows "vi" to > display various information, e.g., the filename, time, and > whether I am in the insert mode or in the command mode, at the top of > the screen. The control-G command will give you file name, if modified, line number and current position as a percentage. :set modeline might also help. Vi intentionally does not put all kinds of crap on your screen (like wordstar) other than the text. This philosophy helps at low baud rates; I admit that "modes" is a weakness, but you can get used to them. >** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job ** If you hack the sources of stevie or the "S" vi clones to put up this mode stuff on the top line, please post them. -Mitch (vi fanatic) Wyle
yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) (11/16/89)
In article <5530@ethz-inf.UUCP> wyle@ethz.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: >In article <456@tron.UUCP> wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: ==>==> (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which ==>==> allows "vi" to ==>==>** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job ==> ==>-Mitch (vi fanatic) Wyle You two might want to think about switching to emacs. The file name is always displayed. Command and insert are unambiguous. Emacs even allows for the execution of unix commands while in the editor. For example: I type Capture Command Output then type date. This gives me the time in my file at the current cursor position. There are infinite variations on this theme. (You might dump the result to a buffer. You may want to to an ls -l on the file you are working on, etc.) Here is an example: Wed Nov 15 15:54:40 EST 1989 The big deal though is that emacs is "universal". We currently have 3 versions of emacs (that I know of) one on the VAX, one on our Ultrix and one on our Suns. I currently switch from machine to machine with very little difficulty. Caveat: A few of the commands are slightly different. It is difficult to change editors but in this case it is worth it. IMHO. See newsgroup gnu.emacs -- yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore)
merlyn@iwarp.intel.com (Randal Schwartz) (11/16/89)
In article <456@tron.UUCP>, wali@tron (Saleem Wali) writes: | Now that I have your attention............. | (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which allows "vi" to | display various information, e.g., the filename, time, and | whether I am in the insert mode or in the command mode, at the top of | the screen. yeah, have your sysadm do "mv /usr/local/emacs /usr/ucb/vi" :-) Otherwise, no luck. You can press ^G a lot, but that doesn't really help. To find out if you are in insert mode, hit ESC, and if it doesn't beep, you *were* in insert mode. What can I say, it's "vi". (or is that "vee-eye"?? :-) Just another satisfied GNU-EMACS (former vi) user, -- /== Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095 ====\ | on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA, Sol III | | merlyn@iwarp.intel.com ...!uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn | \== Cute Quote: "Welcome to Oregon... Home of the California Raisins!" ==/
charleen@cinnamon.ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) (11/16/89)
I can't take this any more. Is this guy for real? In article <20668@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) writes: >In article <5530@ethz-inf.UUCP> wyle@ethz.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: >>In article <456@tron.UUCP> wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: >==>==> (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which >==>==> allows "vi" to >==>==>** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job >==> >==>-Mitch (vi fanatic) Wyle > >You two might want to think about switching to emacs. >[...] >The big deal though is that emacs is "universal". Like hell it is. Not only are there significant differences in commands from version to version, but some sites don't even have emacs installed because they can't afford the overhead. Charleen I put some instant coffee in a microwave and almost went back in time. -- Steven Wright
rwright@novavax.UUCP (Ronald K. Wright) (11/16/89)
wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: > (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which allows "vi" to > display various information, e.g., the filename, time, and > whether I am in the insert mode or in the command mode, at the top of > the screen. Such is available on the ATT 3B1 when using an ATT610 terminal. Likewise, in Tandy Xenix using the ATT610. I have no idea what drives it, but when you are in insert, a small ins appear on the bottom of the 610's screen. Thus there is a signal about insert. No other terminal machine which I have used seems to have it. -- R. K. Wright MD JD | office: medexam!rkw Chief Medical Examiner, Broward County | nova: novavax!rwright Associate Professor Pathology | home: medexam!love1!rkw University of Miami School of Medicine | fax: 305 765 5193
exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee) (11/16/89)
In article <20668@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) writes: >Emacs even allows for the execution of unix commands while in the >editor. For example: I type Capture Command Output then type date. This In vi, try :r! shell command... Don't get me wrong, I like emacs, but it has to always be in cbreak mode which can be painful on a packet-switched network connection. vi can (wouldn't want to say whether any particular implementation *does* or not) go into packetized modes when in input mode. -- Paul Smee | JANET: Smee@uk.ac.bristol Computer Centre | BITNET: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@ukacrl.bitnet University of Bristol | Internet: Smee%uk.ac.bristol@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Phone: +44 272 303132) | UUCP: ...!uunet!ukc!gdr.bath.ac.uk!exspes
wrwalke@prcrs.UUCP (William Walker) (11/17/89)
In article <20668@unix.cis.pitt.edu>, yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) writes: > In article <5530@ethz-inf.UUCP> wyle@ethz.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: > >In article <456@tron.UUCP> wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: > ==>==> (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which > ==>==> allows "vi" to > ==>==>** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job > ==> > ==>-Mitch (vi fanatic) Wyle > > You two might want to think about switching to emacs. > The big deal though is that emacs is "universal". We currently have 3 > versions of emacs (that I know of) one on the VAX, one on our Ultrix and > one on our Suns. > > It is difficult to change editors but in this case it is worth it. IMHO. > check out emacs vi-mode, you can map it to act like the real thing and keep all of your emacs-specific functions (rmail, dired, terminal windows for cut/pasting, etc.). this helps to ease the VI-folks into the emacs world without creating the editor wars once again so recently fought on this group. ** PLEASE __ no editor(1) vs. editor(2) battles, everyone has their ** favorites by now (comp.religion.editors??) bill. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= William Walker --- wrwalke@prcrs.UUCP --- 530N-3 703-556-2565 Quote of the week: UNIX is a trademark of AT&T, so is the "Princess Phone". -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (11/17/89)
In article <20668@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L Moore) writes: >The big deal though is that emacs is "universal". We currently have 3 >versions of emacs (that I know of) one on the VAX, one on our Ultrix and >one on our Suns. I currently switch from machine to machine with very >little difficulty. Caveat: A few of the commands are slightly >different. Emacs is "universal"? Two questions about this: 1. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if different versions of emacs have different command sets, while vi is almost completely (I don't want to say 100% because I'm not a vi user, so don't know for sure) identical across platforms. 2. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if emacs is NOT shipped by default with most Unix systems, while vi IS shipped by default with most (if not all -- anybody here work on a system that doesn't have vi :-) Unix systems? If you're going to cite being "universal" as a reason to choose a particular editor, I'd say vi has emacs beat quite soundly in that area. One more question: 3. Why do you have different versions of emacs on your VAX, Ultrix and Sun machines is GNU emacs will compile for all of them? >It is difficult to change editors but in this case it is worth it. IMHO. Now *this* I agree with :-) Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/17/89)
In article <15948@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: | 2. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if emacs is NOT shipped by | default with most Unix systems, while vi IS shipped by default with | most (if not all -- anybody here work on a system that doesn't have | vi :-) Unix systems? emacs is more universal because it is on more types of systems. If you are operating in a very sheltered environment which is UNIX only you don't care, but having portable p.d. version of emacs makes it more widely available. This should not be confused with a claim that available=better, just an explanation of propigation in the real world. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
gsp98@wash08.uucp (Gerald Partsch) (11/17/89)
In article <5530@ethz-inf.UUCP> wyle@ethz.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes: >In article <456@tron.UUCP> wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: >> (vi editor) Is there anyone who knows of a utility which allows "vi" to >> display various information, e.g., the filename, time, and >> whether I am in the insert mode or in the command mode, at the top of >> the screen. > >The control-G command will give you file name, if modified, line number and >current position as a percentage. :set modeline might also help. >Vi intentionally does not put all kinds of crap on your screen (like >wordstar) other than the text. This philosophy helps at low baud rates; I >admit that "modes" is a weakness, but you can get used to them. > >>** Westinghouse Electric Corp. * New on the job ** > >If you hack the sources of stevie or the "S" vi clones to put up this mode >stuff on the top line, please post them. > >-Mitch (vi fanatic) Wyle If you include the following lines in your ".exrc" file, you will get a status line at the bottom of the screen that displays "INPUT MODE" when you are in input mode and displays nothing when in command mode. They also number the lines in the file. .exrc ----- set showmode set number A <ctrl-G> displays the following information: "filename" line x of y -- % --
dstewart@fas.ri.cmu.edu (David B Stewart) (11/17/89)
In article <15948@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: >In article <20668@unix.cis.pitt.edu> yahoo@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Kenneth L >Moore) writes: >>The big deal though is that emacs is "universal". We currently have 3 >>versions of emacs (that I know of) one on the VAX, one on our Ultrix and >>one on our Suns. I currently switch from machine to machine with very >>little difficulty. Caveat: A few of the commands are slightly >>different. > > Emacs is "universal"? Two questions about this: > >2. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if emacs is NOT shipped by > default with most Unix systems, while vi IS shipped by default with > most (if not all -- anybody here work on a system that doesn't have > vi :-) Unix systems? I like 'vi', and I don't with all my personal macros, and a Sun Workstation with multiple windows, I don't see enough reasons to switch to Emacs. (But Don't start telling me all the advantages, I'm sure I've heard them all from my emacs-fanatic office mate). The funniest thing is that when my office mate was forced to install a new system, he had to learn 'vi' just to be able to set up the system and install Emacs. So much for Emacs being "universal"! "Long Live VI, and Long Live the UNIX Command Line" :-) ~dave -- David B. Stewart, Dept. of Elec. & Comp. Engr., and The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, email: stewart@faraday.ece.cmu.edu The following software is now available; ask me for details CHIMERA II, A Real-time OS for Sensor-Based Control Applications
ir239@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (ir239) (11/17/89)
In article <7008@pt.cs.cmu.edu> dstewart@fas.ri.cmu.edu (David B Stewart) writes: > >But Don't start telling me all the advantages, I'm sure I've heard >them all from my emacs-fanatic office mate). Any and every 'vi' user has had at least one of these. Oh well, to each his own. >The funniest thing is that when my office mate was forced to install >a new system, he had to learn 'vi' just to be able to set up the system >and install Emacs. So much for Emacs being "universal"! Imagine how much fun he'd have if he couldn't mount his /usr directory -- it's happened, don't laugh. No 'emacs', no 'vi', no 'ex'. THEN he get's to learn 'ed', so he can install 'vi', to ease the pain of installing the "universal" 'emacs'. For the record, I use the available editor with which I am most comfortable. On most systems this is 'vi', but it's not always there. Some "hard-cores" think everyone should start with 'ed' -- so they better understand regular expressions. Some "innovationists" think every new editor should become the de facto standard. Who cares? You can make 'emacs' work like 'vi' and you can "doll-up" 'vi' to look like 'emacs' -- if you know the right tricks. Why bother? Now, if you want to discuss versions of Rogue, or the relative merits of Rogue vs. Hack . . . #include <disclaimer.std.h> Geoffrey R. Walton ir239@sdcc6.ucsd.edu <--for now; new net address under construction a guest of, but no longer affiliated with, the Dept. of Literature Never deny an idiot another opportunity to prove it.
pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) (11/17/89)
In article <5530@ethz-inf.UUCP> wyle@ethz.UUCP (Mitchell Wyle) writes:
=Vi intentionally does not put all kinds of crap on your screen (like
=wordstar) other than the text.
I beg your pardon. WordStar only puts the crap that you want on the
screen. It is Microsoft WORD that eats a large percentage of your
usable lines, trying to be friendly. WS is too good an editor that has
been overlooked by the press for me to let that statement go by!
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (11/18/89)
In article <15948@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > 1. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if different versions of emacs > have different command sets, ... (1) EMACS runs on DECsystem-10s, and lots of other non-UNIX systems. There are flavors of EMACS for personal computers, even the Apple II. (2) The basic default key bindings are practically the same across all versions of EMACS. ^F goes forward a character, ^N goes down a line, etc. One can cutomize his own use of many flavors of EMACS via .emacsrc-like files, and there is even a "vi" emulation available for some EMACS. (The converse is impossible => EMACS is more universal in a third sense.) > 2. Why is emacs more universal than vi, if emacs is NOT shipped by > default with most Unix systems, while vi IS shipped by default with > most (if not all -- anybody here work on a system that doesn't have > vi :-) Unix systems? Serious UNIX houses generally provide some local flavor of EMACS in addition to whatever is shipped by system vendors, and of course you can get GNU EMACS for free. We've had at least five flavors of EMACS here, one of which we selected years ago to officially support lab-wide. > 3. Why do you have different versions of emacs on your VAX, Ultrix and > Sun machines is GNU emacs will compile for all of them? Why not? Is it a problem, or what? > >It is difficult to change editors but in this case it is worth it. IMHO. > Now *this* I agree with :-) Me, too, except I would go further and say that the TYPICAL user would be better served by an editor like "sam". I reserve EMACS for special circumstances, and "vi" only when there is no better choice. The main thing "better" about EMACS over "vi" is that EMACS is modeless. Experience (backed by some of the usual silly academic "studies") has shown that modeless interactive editing is overall more effective than moded.
dan@charyb.COM (Dan Mick) (11/18/89)
AAAAA! *PLEASE* stop arguing about editors, or we'll have a 100-message thread without even trying! Just resist the impulse, or do it in mail... *PLEASE*!!! -- .sig files are idiotic and wasteful.
captain@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Jeffrey Kirk) (11/18/89)
In article <11630@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: > >The main thing "better" about EMACS over "vi" is that EMACS is modeless. >Experience (backed by some of the usual silly academic "studies") has >shown that modeless interactive editing is overall more effective than moded. I use both vi and emacs, but emacs, modeless? When is the last time you looked at your status line? What are magic, exact, cMODE (hint-hint), etc... sure look like MODES to me. I guess what you are complaining about is the "input" mode in vi, well everyone has an opinion, personally I can't stand having my left-pinky-finger glued to the ctrl key 100% of the time in EMACS (Editor for Morons Attracted to Control Sequences). -Person forced to use EMACS every day :-[
bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) (11/20/89)
In article <1634@novavax.UUCP> rwright@novavax.UUCP (Ronald K. Wright) writes: >wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: >> .... utility which allows "vi" to display ....at the top of the screen. >Such is available on the ATT 3B1 when using an ATT610 terminal. >Likewise, in Tandy Xenix using the ATT610. I have no idea what >drives it, but when you are in insert, a small ins appear on the >bottom of the 610's screen. Thus there is a signal about insert. > >No other terminal machine which I have used seems to have it. Many terminals that have a "status" line available do it in the Xenix's I use. Don't recall if it does it on the Unix ones, don't have one available right now to test, but I seem to remember it works the same. On a Wsye 60 (for example) anytime I am inserting an INS appears on the top of the screen when it is in extended format mode. Standard mode gives time of day but no INS. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer) (11/21/89)
In article <371@bilver.UUCP> bill@bilver.UUCP (Bill Vermillion) writes: :In article <1634@novavax.UUCP> rwright@novavax.UUCP (Ronald K. Wright) writes: :>wali@tron.UUCP (Saleem Wali) writes: :>> .... utility which allows "vi" to display ....at the top of the screen. : :>Such is available on the ATT 3B1 when using an ATT610 terminal. :>Likewise, in Tandy Xenix using the ATT610. I have no idea what :>drives it, but when you are in insert, a small ins appear on the :>bottom of the 610's screen. Thus there is a signal about insert. :> :>No other terminal machine which I have used seems to have it. : :Many terminals that have a "status" line available do it in the Xenix's I use. :Don't recall if it does it on the Unix ones, don't have one available right :now to test, but I seem to remember it works the same. : :On a Wsye 60 (for example) anytime I am inserting an INS appears on the top of :the screen when it is in extended format mode. Standard mode gives time of :day but no INS. : : :-- :Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!tarpit!bilver!bill : : bill@bilver.UUCP To understand why you get this message, you have to understand that many ascii terminals support hardware insertion modes. If you have a terminfo based vi, and the mir flag is set, and the smir and rmir strings are set (in termcap mir=mi, smir=im, rmir=ei) then when you enter insert mode, the smir string will be sent. When you hit escape, the rmir string will be sent. The ascii terminal detects the string, and if it supports a status line, reflects that mode on the status line. ADDS Viewpoint 90's support this capability. If you set showmode in SYSV vi, the string "INPUT MODE" will appear in the right hand side of the command line. (Unless of course, you happen to move the cursor with the cursor keys. Entering a new line will restore the string. As for using the top line for a status line, that would be relatively easy on any terminal that supports scrolling regions (vt100's, ADDS Viewpoint 60's and 90's, most Wyse's, at least in emulation mode). Using your own terminfo database, change cup to reflect lines 2-24. Change line#23. Change home to point to 2,1. Change clear to move to 2,1 and clear to end of screen. Set hs (HasStatusline). Set up tsl to write ToStatusLine (this may require setting scrolling region to 1,1, moving the cursor to 1,1 and clearing the line. Set up fsl to leave FromStatusLine (change scrolling region to 2-24, move cursor to 2,1). Vi will now only write in the bottom 23 lines. You then need to write a wrapper shell script to write to the status line and invoke vi. Be sure to trap out interrupts. Add a few refinements to your .exrc file, and you can modify the status line when you change files. For instance, to change files, set up a pf key: map #1 :e `modF map #2 :n `modF Then, enter file name(s)`<CR> modF is as follows: ====================================================================== TSL=${TSL:-`tput tsl`} FSL=${FSL:-`tput fsl`} if [ $# -eq 0 ] then echo "${TSL} unnamed size 0${FSL}\c" >/dev/tty exit fi if [ -f $1 ] then size=`set -- \`ls -l $1\`;echo $4` else size=0 fi echo "${TSL} $1 size $size${FSL}\c" >/dev/tty echo $@ ====================================================================== note, status line commands must be piped directly to terminal, not stdout. Want vi in split screen mode, that's possible too, with different TERMINFO settings for the top and bottom and the right .exrc functions to swap between. Since tput is rather slow, I read it once during my profile and store the useful strings in my environment (which makes env output a nightmare). I've even written a cup function that uses argv[1] as the cup string for cursor positioning. -- Dan Mercer Reply-To: mercer@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dan Mercer)
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (11/21/89)
In article <1634@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: > emacs is more universal because it is on more types of systems. If you >are operating in a very sheltered environment which is UNIX only you >don't care, but having portable p.d. version of emacs makes it more >widely available. Ah, of course.... I was committing the cardinal sin of assuming that the whole world's a Unix box :-) I forgot that we even have emacs on our Mac.... However, I got the impression from the message to which I was replying that the original poster was trying to say that emacs was more universal *in the Unix world*, and I still maintain that that's just not so.... Jonathan Kamens USnail: MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace jik@Athena.MIT.EDU Allston, MA 02134 Office: 617-253-8495 Home: 617-782-0710