Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!gssc!jdm
From: jdm@gssc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Re: vi on system v, sed on all unixs
Message-ID: <366@gssc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Apr-87 12:14:20 EST
Article-I.D.: gssc.366
Posted: Tue Apr  7 12:14:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Apr-87 04:41:28 EST
References: <356@gssc.UUCP> <1990002@hpl-opus.HP.COM>
Reply-To: jdm@gssc.UUCP (John D. Miller)
Organization: Graphic Software Systems, Beaverton Or
Lines: 41

i would appreciate someone sending me the sources for bed and bpatch, binary
file editor/patcher.

here are the other suggestions i got for the two ailments i posted (system v 
vi has a < 100K filesize limit && sed doesn't work with binaries.)

    1. "use emacs." - if i worked on only one or two unix systems, maybe 
    this would work, but i work on multiple machines, with new ones all 
    the time, and it is not worth the time to port emacs everywhere i go.

    2. "modify this line and recompile." - again, i can't spend time 
    dorking with standard tools everywhere i go.  

    3. "write your own program to.." - of course, that's what i did for the 
    "quick and dirty" fix, but it is not as functional as a finished editor.

    my main gripe (this time) is vi's size restriction.  at&t should bring the
    tools up to snuff and leave the toy implementations to the dos boys.  

NEWS FLASH: i just got some of my 3b2's "upgraded" to 5.3 and vi has departed
even further from the norm:

        1. using ":n" on a modified file (yes, i have aw set) causes a status
        message to be printed with "[Hit return to continue]" on the next line!
        i hit return, the the next file's status line appears partly on the
        "hit return" line, and partly on the next line, sometimes breaking
        in the middle of a word, like it thinks it only has 40 columns to
        write the message!!  then, it makes you "hit return to continue"
        again!!

        2. using "vi -ta function"  causes vi to edit "a" as it now expects
        the tag option to be "vi -t function" or "vi -tfunction", even though
        while actually in vi you must use :ta or :tag, as :t is undefined.

why does at&t enjoy busting things?  

-- jdm
-- 
in real life:  John D. Miller, Graphic Software Systems (GSS),    Beaverton, OR
...!{tektronix!verdix}!sequent!gssc!jdm                          (503) 641-2200
...!mntgfx!gssc!jdm                            "Take time to smell the highway"