[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?
From: |
David Brown |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:08:27 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 11:44:49AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> The Emacs approach that was mentioned, treating '+' specially only
> when followed by digits, would seem to be portable to vi-family
> editors and would largely resolve the problem.
Vi allows the string following the + to be an arbitrary command. It is
usually either a number, to go that line, or a search string (surrounded
by slashes).
The vi clones implement it this way to maintain compatibility with
scripts that use them. I don't know how many of these scripts are left,
but I have heard people complain about the strangest incompatibilities
with vim.
Personally, as long as it is documented, it doesn't bother me.
Dave
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/10
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Adam Spiers, 2003/09/14
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/10
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/10
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/10
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, John Goerzen, 2003/09/10
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Utterly painless arch?, Neil Stevens, 2003/09/09