| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 15:58:56 -0600 |
| 3 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 01:00:16PM -0400, Brad Laue wrote: |
| 6 |
> > Hi all, |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I'm running into builds requiring the 'ex' binary, which is provided |
| 9 |
> > by several vi clones. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I'd like to suggest the creation of 'virtual/vi' to satisfy this |
| 12 |
> > problem. Are there any comments/objections? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Should we have a virtual/vi and a virtual/ex? Or should we require |
| 15 |
> that anything providing virtual/vi includes an ex? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Anything that provides vi should out of compability reasons also provide |
| 18 |
ex. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Now, why isnt this discussion on -dev? |
| 21 |
//Spider |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
(not removing quotes due to crossposting) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
begin .signature |
| 28 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 29 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 30 |
end |
Archives