Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!bruce!mark
From: mark@bruce.OZ (Mark Goodwin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: vi under minix
Message-ID: <1390@bruce.OZ>
Date: 20 Jul 89 01:40:17 GMT
References: <62840001@hpl-opus.HP.COM>
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 28

From article by walker@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Rick Walker):

> The main difference between S and stevie is that S was originally a
> well-polished modular piece of code, written for publication and
> critical perusal - whereas stevie has more or less evolved to its present
> condition.  For instance, the version of stevie that I have has the undo
> command in a state of disrepair, but S has clean support for the undo
> function transparently built into the buffer manager code.
> 

Sounds like `s' is a much better place to start than `stevie' - clean
code to begin with must certainly result in a better final product. And
to edit arbitrarily large files efficiently is a must.

> The most interesting question is whether Webb Miller and Prentice Hall
> can be convinced to allow S to be distributed with MINIX or on the net.
> I believe that wide publication of S would certainly help sell more of 
> Webb Miller's great book (I bought it).  If permission could be obtained,
> I could post the current version or make it available to interested parties.

Please post the current version if permission can be obtained from Webb Miller.
Does permission from PH really matter? If the current version is incomplete,
I volunteer to clean it up (if no one else wants to).

Many thanks

-- 
Mark Goodwin, Programmer @ Monash Uni. Comp. Sci.