| 1 |
[Should have gone to the list, sorry ciaranm.] |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:45:39 +0000 |
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> One way to go about it would be to introduce blocks. This is pretty |
| 7 |
> stupid though -- the only conflict is a measly symlink. So... Some |
| 8 |
> genius please provide a suggested way to handle this kind of situation |
| 9 |
> that doesn't involve any of the following: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Ok, this may be a really stupid idea, but maybe you could introduce a |
| 12 |
vi-config similar to gcc-config and the like? Using this you'd specify a |
| 13 |
standard vi compatible editor, which gets the symlinks, whereas the |
| 14 |
others have be invoked with their respective names. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Michael Kohl <citizen428@g.o> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
GnuPG key: 0x90CA09E3/4D21 916E DBCE 72B8 CDC5 BD87 DE2D 91A2 90CA 09E3 |
Archives