Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Hi Steffen, > >>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL >>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of >>> the default values. Kurt Shoens,

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul Fox wrote: ... i love this mailing list. i keep trying to leave, but, i can't! -- P Vixie -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

ralph wrote: > Hi Steffen, > > > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL > > > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of > > > the default values. Kurt Shoens, k...@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, is down > > > as the author in

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Steffen, > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL > > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of > > the default values. Kurt Shoens, k...@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, is down > > as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of > >

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Andy Bradford wrote: Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -: For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR. :-) You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -: > For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor > have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR. :-) You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

>That reminds me, whatnow(1) needs a `visual'. I'm not sure that's true ... you have always been able to supply your own editor to "edit" at the whatnow prompt. --Ken -- nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:57:28 +0700 Robert Elz wrote: Robert Elz writes: > Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 > From:Steffen Nurpmeso > Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> > > | BSD Mail had both of ~v and

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Robert Elz wrote: |Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 |From:Steffen Nurpmeso |Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> | || BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start. I know of no || known

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Date:Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100 From:Steffen Nurpmeso Message-ID: <20180320144337.zm2ro%stef...@sdaoden.eu> | BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start. I know of no | known released file which acted otherwise. Including in the

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy wrote: |>> so a program like mail would offer two escapes (~e vs. ~v) to let |>> yo invoke either. |> |> So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed |> was 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd |>

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Hi Ken, > > so a program like mail would offer two escapes (~e vs. ~v) to let > > yo invoke either. > > So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed > was 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd > use EDITOR? No, AFAIK it was always the user's

Re: [nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken Hornstein writes: > So ... I guess programs would look at the terminal and if your speed was > 9600 baud or greater, you'd use VISUAL, and if it was slower you'd use > EDITOR? I could believe that (although from memory I don't recall vi > being that bad at 2400 baud, but it