Andras Farkas writes: > POSIX doesn't seem very clear on this, but this section seems to > support vim's vi-compatible behavior a little: > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/vi.html#tag_20_152_13_35
I think nvi's unlimited undo "u ." might violate POSIX, but vim's "u u" definitely does: POSIX is clear that u undoes u. I prefer nvi's way. (Stockholm syndrome?) > The bug seems to be based around what vi decides the . command applies > to. Oddly enough, I don't see the u command in POSIX's list of what . > can repeat. This might not be a bug, but may be an intentional > deviation from old/POSIX behavior. If so, I'll simply re-work Section > 33 of the tutorial. I guess the tutorial is outdated. It probably worked before nvi gained unlimited undo. So that part of the tutorial should be reworked.
