forrest@sybase.com (11/26/90)
I'm yet another person who has toyed with the idea of writing
a version of vi/ex. One thing that has me worried is the variations
among the versions of 'vi'. These days there's no way to say what
a true 'vi' should do. What's a mother to do? Do we need an ANSI
committee? Does what comes out of Berkeley defined 'vi' ipso facto?
Do we need Gnuvi?
Helplessly Hoping,
----
Anything you read here is my opinion and in no way represents Sybase, Inc.
Jon Forrest WB6EDM
forrest@sybase.com
{pacbell,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!forrest
415-596-3422kirkenda@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Steve Kirkendall) (11/27/90)
In article <11855@sybase.sybase.com> forrest@sybase.com writes: >I'm yet another person who has toyed with the idea of writing >a version of vi/ex. One thing that has me worried is the variations >among the versions of 'vi'. These days there's no way to say what >a true 'vi' should do. What's a mother to do? Do we need an ANSI >committee? Does what comes out of Berkeley defined 'vi' ipso facto? >Do we need Gnuvi? Elvis is being distributed with GNU. It isn't part of GNU, officially, but it is being distributed with true GNU software as a convenience to GNU users. When RMS asked me for permission to distribute Elvis, he also promised to send me a copy of the POSIX specification for ex/vi. I never received it. I presume this is because the spec hasn't escaped from the committee yet, or something like that. (Actually, I was surprised to hear that a committee would even try to arrive at a concensus on the behaviour of something as big and quirky as ex/vi.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Kirkendall kirkenda@cs.pdx.edu Grad student at Portland State U.
QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (11/28/90)
In article <764@pdxgate.UUCP>, kirkenda@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Steve Kirkendall) says: > >In article <11855@sybase.sybase.com> forrest@sybase.com writes: >>I'm yet another person who has toyed with the idea of writing >>a version of vi/ex. One thing that has me worried is the variations >>among the versions of 'vi'. These days there's no way to say what >>a true 'vi' should do. What's a mother to do? Do we need an ANSI >>committee? Does what comes out of Berkeley defined 'vi' ipso facto? >>Do we need Gnuvi? > Interesting..... I would take AT&T's vi for SVR4 as a 'standard' unless BSD 4.4 is a radical improvement on the previous BSD versions.... Alan Thew : University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory Bitnet/Earn: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL UUCP : ....!mcsun!ukc!liv!qq11 Voice : +44 51 794 3735 FAX : +44 51 794 3759 Internet : QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK @ NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK
forrest@orion.sybase.com (Jon Forrest) (12/02/90)
In article <90332.124931QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes: > >I would take AT&T's vi for SVR4 as a 'standard' unless BSD 4.4 is a >radical improvement on the previous BSD versions.... > >Alan Thew : University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory >Bitnet/Earn: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL Since 'vi' was born in Berkeley and first appeared in one of the PDP-11 BSD releases I don't see any reason to treat AT&T's version as the true 'vi' other than just because of AT&T's relationship to Unix. I'm wondering what the status of 'vi' will be in 4.4 BSD. I heard that the reason why it's not public domain is because Bill Joy and friends used some AT&T code. Since the current BSD project is trying to sanitize BSD to make it freely distributable, maybe they'll be able to make BSD free too. ---- Anything you read here is my opinion and in no way represents Sybase, Inc. Jon Forrest WB6EDM forrest@sybase.com {pacbell,sun,{uunet,ucbvax}!mtxinu}!sybase!forrest 415-596-3422
QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK (Alan Thew) (12/05/90)
In article <11958@sybase.sybase.com>, forrest@orion.sybase.com (Jon Forrest) says: > >In article <90332.124931QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK> QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK writes: >> >>I would take AT&T's vi for SVR4 as a 'standard' unless BSD 4.4 is a >>radical improvement on the previous BSD versions.... .... >Since 'vi' was born in Berkeley and first appeared in one of the >PDP-11 BSD releases I don't see any reason to treat AT&T's version >as the true 'vi' other than just because of AT&T's relationship to >Unix. I'm wondering what the status of 'vi' will be in 4.4 BSD. I only pointed to SVr4 because in my experience of BSD versions vs AT&T versions, the AT&T versions offer more/better functionality. I freely admit that doesn't make it the 'true' vi but perhaps a the better one..... (no flames please :-)) Alan Thew : University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory Bitnet/Earn: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL UUCP : ....!mcsun!ukc!liv!qq11 Voice : +44 51 794 3735 FAX : +44 51 794 3759 Internet : QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK @ NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK