Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!mucs!liv-cs!liv!qq11
From: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: A Standard 'vi' (if such a thing exists)
Message-ID: <90332.124931QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Date: 28 Nov 90 12:49:30 GMT
References: <11855@sybase.sybase.com> <764@pdxgate.UUCP>
Organization: University of Liverpool
Lines: 20

In article <764@pdxgate.UUCP>, kirkenda@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Steve Kirkendall) says:
>
>In article <11855@sybase.sybase.com> forrest@sybase.com writes:
>>I'm yet another person who has toyed with the idea of writing
>>a version of vi/ex. One thing that has me worried is the variations
>>among the versions of 'vi'. These days there's no way to say what
>>a true 'vi' should do. What's a mother to do? Do we need an ANSI
>>committee? Does what comes out of Berkeley defined 'vi' ipso facto?
>>Do we need Gnuvi?
>
Interesting.....

I would take AT&T's vi for SVR4 as a 'standard' unless BSD 4.4 is a
radical improvement on the previous BSD versions....

Alan Thew  : University of Liverpool Computer Laboratory
Bitnet/Earn: QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%UK.AC.LIVERPOOL @ UKACRL
    UUCP   :           ....!mcsun!ukc!liv!qq11
   Voice   :  +44 51 794 3735        FAX : +44 51 794 3759
Internet   : QQ11@LIVERPOOL.AC.UK or QQ11%LIVERPOOL.AC.UK @ NSFNET-RELAY.AC.UK