[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nano-devel] [RFC] is it time to break free from the Pico defaults

From: Benno Schulenberg
Subject: Re: [Nano-devel] [RFC] is it time to break free from the Pico defaults
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 20:25:34 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1

Op 11-12-18 om 20:14 schreef David Ramsey:
> Pico seems to have had -q for awhile, and we can't really ignore it for
> compatibility because we don't have the functionality it affects:

I thought the idea of ignoring some options was that if a user invokes
pico with any of these options and pico is actually symlinked to nano,
that nano will not barf.

> On the other hand, no one's ever complained about the incompatibility,
> most likely because Pico doesn't even have the option unless it's
> specially compiled.

The pico provided by my distro (Ubuntu) accepts -q.

> I figure we're compatible enough.

I think that compatibility is not relevant any more.  People who in
the past found Pico to be good enough, will have sticked with Pico.
Those who switched to nano, will not have looked back.  Very few
people will nowadays switch between the two -- is my guess.

> (And how does -d not work as in Pico?  I've done some quick testing, and
> I can't see a difference in how Delete and Backspace behave under it
> versus how they behave in Pico.)

When running 'pico -d', both <Delete> and <Backspace> delete a
character rightward.  When running 'nano -d', those keys still work
in the normal way: <Backspace> deletes leftward, and <Delete> rightward.
Except when one uses also -K, then nano behaves like Pico.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]