On 07/19/10 15:50, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
On 19/07/10 19:56, Tim Chase wrote:
Um, this has been vi behavior since the beginning,
AFAICT...I've got an older version of nvi as well as vim6.2
(yes, I can hear Tony complaining already ;-) and they both
behave the same wa
:-) I know you were joking, but I'll answer seriously:
I'm not complaining. Keeping legacy versions side-by-side with
the latest and shiniest for comparison purposes is perfectly
all right. Where I'll "complain" is if someone barges in
saying "I've found a bug in Vim 6.2", or, as yesterday, "We
need a written and notarized assurance that Vim 6.3 supports
Windows 7".
Fair enough -- I tend to just use whatever made it onto the
system first or has the least resistance. But I can sympathize
with expecting the latest release version (if not the
latest-and-greatest build from source+patches) in order to
address bugs. Usually if I provide an answer on the list that I
know will trigger a bug in older versions, I'll at least mention
it (the one I hit most frequently involves using "@:" to
re-execute the command-line if it contains control-characters
such as ^M in it; which I think was fixed in 7.0)
In the case of of the v6.2, it's what came stock on my G4 iBook
(OS X 10.4) and it suffices for just about everything I do in
Vim. The only thing I occasionally miss is the
string-text-objects (i"/i'/a"/a') that were introduced in 7.0
(which in 6.2 lists my name beside the request in todo.txt :)
On my Win32 boxes at work, I usually just install whatever's
current at the time I do the install and then don't bother
upgrading; while my Linux boxes get whatever the repository
upgrades me to when I "apt-get" the latest system updates.
-tim
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
