| 1 |
On 30 Apr 2003 07:49:10 +0800 |
| 2 |
William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> This was apparently a bug in vim at one time, but even the bugfixed |
| 5 |
> console version can want X in some circumstances that are likely to |
| 6 |
> catch people out when can they least expect or afford it (e.g., X |
| 7 |
> failure: how do you edit XF86Config quickly if you have no X and |
| 8 |
> therefore no vim: has happened to me!). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This is just a silly reason already - did you nuke nano or something? |
| 11 |
>From vim --help: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
-X Do not connect to X server |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Users who can't figure out to try --help are probably going to generate line noise by trying to use vi in the first place. ;) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> To me, the question is whether to stick with a convention that is not |
| 18 |
> appropriate in this circumstance, or do a logical workaround that can |
| 19 |
> satisfactorily overcome this behaviour. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
While we can continue the vim-with-x vs. X battle royale, I: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
a) think X is better |
| 24 |
b) really don't care |
| 25 |
c) withdraw any ill-will toward developers who avoid -dev |
| 26 |
d) was seriously hoping this would turn in to a vi vs. emacs war |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Perhaps someone should set up a forum poll? ;) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> Can someone define why console vim needs X anyway, apart from the highly |
| 31 |
> critical trick of putting a title on the X window? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Causing grief to those who bork their XF86Config? ;) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
(All flames meant in the friendliest spirit.) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Peter Fein |
| 39 |
pfein@×××××.com |
| 40 |
773-575-0694 |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives