> So, a one-line solution for vi(m), and a two page solution for Emacs. > Sounds about right.
Lets see - emacs: C-x RET c unix RET C-x C-v RET M-% C-q C-m RET RET ! C-x C-s And now vi: Well for the first two - Vi doesn't have a way to change visibly between the two formats to even make the ^M appear - so I guess that doesn't count. :%s/ C-q C-m // :w So VI isn't a one liner - it is at least two - and that is negating the fact that if the file shows up in DOS mode there isn't an easy way to make the ^M show up. There might be a way to do this in VI - I haven't been able to find it. Well lets try another way of doing things. Turns out we don't need to do search and replace in Vim or Emacs. Emacs: C-x C-f backup.pl SPC C-_ C-x RET c unix RET C-x C-s And now vi: :set ff=dos :open backup.pl :set ff=unix :w (vim lets us save a file even though we haven't made modifications - emacs doesn't) Gee - I'm seeing a pattern here. Both editors are cryptic. So once again I have written a long document. I guess that is the difference between emacs and vim users. Vim users give you a cryptic one liner and hope you know what it is doing, emacs users give you a cryptic one liner, explain what the one liner does, and then expect that what they said makes sense. I'm hoping that this won't fall further into a session of "count the key strokes that it takes to do it in vim vs emacs because that proves my editor is culrz." Any such argument is a shallow religious debate about whether it is better to be in insert mode or control mode. Paul /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
