On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Michael Schaap wrote:
On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also
On 4-Nov-2005 1:49, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Michael Schaap wrote:
On 20-Oct-2005 16:42, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly
On Oct 25 12:11, Shankar Unni wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, it doesn't. I just tried it in 6.3 and this behaviour is the same
as in 6.4.
??
% pwd
/cygdrive/c/temp/test
% ls
% touch x
% ls -li
20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None 0 Oct 25 12:10 x
% vim X
% ls -li
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
You're doing something differently here, perhaps in vim itself.
For example, the following?
:set nobackup nowritebackup
If you disable both backup and writebackup, it leaves the file
name unchanged when you write to it. So there's a workaround if
you don't care about
At 00:37 2005-10-26 -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Arend-Jan Westhoff wrote:
Could this for once mean a positive press for text mounts? Or has it
something to do with NTFS - FAT32 ?
The former is unlikely. The latter is possible.
If the latter is true I think that would
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
No, it doesn't. I just tried it in 6.3 and this behaviour is the same
as in 6.4.
??
% pwd
/cygdrive/c/temp/test
% ls
% touch x
% ls -li
20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None 0 Oct 25 12:10 x
% vim X
% ls -li
total 1
20547673299962566 -rw-rw-rw- 1 shankar None
At 15:32 2005-10-24 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Oct 20 14:16, Shankar Unni wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this
PS Speaking of filename completion: Windows can be configured to use TAB as
cmd file and directory expansion character. I do find the cmd filename
completion behaviour more convenient than the default bash version. It is
usually
not difficult to organize a directory so that TAB or
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Arend-Jan Westhoff wrote:
Could this for once mean a positive press for text mounts? Or has it
something to do with NTFS - FAT32 ?
The former is unlikely. The latter is possible.
How come that if I have text mounts the edit action in the preceding
procedure only ads a
On Oct 20 14:16, Shankar Unni wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any
Shankar Unni wrote:
But I think it's worth mentioning that 6.3 doesn't do this (change the
case of the name when writing back). It overwrites the old file when
writing back, thus preserving its case.
More to the point, the windows version of vim 6.4 doesn't do
this, either. So there is some
Hi all,
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ).
If you enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any modification, the file will be
renamed even to x.sh. This behavior is very nasty if such
file is used by
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any modification, the file will be renamed even
to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:26:58PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
there is a bug in this version:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:15:34PM +0200, Christoph Jeksa wrote:
Supposed, you have a file X.sh ( exactly in this spelling ). If you
enter:
vim x.sh ( also exactly in this spelling )
and write it back after any modification, the file will be renamed even
to x.sh.
17 matches
Mail list logo
