Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!hc!siegel
From: siegel@hc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: vi BUG!!!!
Message-ID: <11586@hc.DSPO.GOV>
Date: Mon, 23-Nov-87 17:56:20 EST
Article-I.D.: hc.11586
Posted: Mon Nov 23 17:56:20 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Nov-87 04:36:18 EST
References: <11323@hc.DSPO.GOV> <50100001@upba>
Reply-To: siegel@hc.dspo.gov.UUCP (Josh Siegel)
Organization: Group E-10, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Lines: 32

In article <50100001@upba> cory@upba.UUCP writes:
>
>
[ . . .]
>	than sign(s) (let's call this file2).  Vi really doesn't care what
>	file2 is; if the file exists and you have write permission, Shazam;
>	if the file does not exist and you have write permission in the
>	directory, Shazam.
>
>	Just because you choose to append to a file that you have write
>	access to, but happen to be editing in read-only mode, makes no
>	difference.  file1 and file2 are NOT related, and whether or not
>	they are the same file doesn't matter.  It's not a bug.
>
>					-Cory

The real problem here is that a person open's a file using 'view',
he is still capable of damaging the file without specificly requesting
to do so. 

When I do ':w>><return>', I made the mistake of not specifying the file.  It
should have returned that it was read only.  Even with all the problems
that happen due to symbolic links,  this check should be quick and
easy.

':w' gets it right.. Why doesn't ':w>><RETURN>'?


			--Josh Siegel
-- 
Josh Siegel		(siegel@hc.dspo.gov)
  Friends don't let Friends eat Cherry Zingers