Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: vi under minix Message-ID: <5078@ficc.uu.net> Date: 19 Jul 89 14:47:50 GMT References: <1385@bruce.OZ> <2892@ast.cs.vu.nl> <5060@ficc.uu.net> Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 25 In article , jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: > peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) > > If anyone wants to do a *real* port of vi to MINIX, a good place to start > > would be the Software Tools version of 'ed'. After all, the real 'vi' got > > started with enhancements to the real 'ed'. > Actually, Bill Joy (and Mark Horton, I think) started out using ed, but > soon abandoned it when it became clear that it wouldn't work. They wrote > ex instead, and put vi on top of it. This is, reportedly, no ed code left > in vi/ex. This really doesn't effect the desirability of starting with the Software Tools 'ed', though. (a) There's no UNIX 'ed' code in there, and there's no relationship between the internals, so whatever internal problems existed in UNIX 'ed' aren't relevant. (b) These days the Software Tools 'ed' looks more like 'ex' anyway... you know, readable error messages and stuff. The basic thing here is that unless you start with something that looks like 'ed' or 'ex' you're going to either have to add it in later (to fully support vi's EX mode and : commands), or give up on full 'vi' compatibility. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."