On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Kapil Hari Paranjape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello, > > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008, Balu manyam wrote: > > absolutely - less is much better - it would be more helpful if one can > edit > > a file with less - so we need not use 'vi' especially for big text > > files..(sed -i is an option but less is less memory intensive) > > I think adding an editor to "less" would lead to un-needed bloat. > Having one's own familiar editor while editing files is a great boon. > Each application with its own quirky and un-familiar editor is a > pain. > > Here are some alternatives: > > 1. Use the 'v' command in "less" to push the file to *real* editor. > You can use the emacs server mode so that the editing task is pushed > to an already running emacs. > > 2. Reverse things and use the 'view-file' mode of your editor to view > the file instead of less. For example, in vi-like editors you can use > the view command. In emacs you can set the buffer to read-only or > use a mode that runs a viewer like w3m inside emacs. I think "vim" > has a less emulation mode as well. > > Regards, > > Kapil. > -- > thanks Kapil - very good suggestions - I would like to avoid a direct vi on a BIG text file as vi likes to load the whole file into memory - this is not only time consuming - but also not easy on RAM - and if someone forgets to close the vi session - i suspect the mempry will not be free()d -- I expect the same with view -- where as less and 'v' suggested on the list - i think only the portion of text is passed by less to vi _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
