Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!super.upenn.edu!eecae!upba!authorplaceholder
From: authorplaceholder@upba.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: vi BUG!!!!
Message-ID: <50100002@upba>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 11:02:00 EST
Article-I.D.: upba.50100002
Posted: Tue Nov 24 11:02:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 04:49:32 EST
References: <11323@hc.DSPO.GOV>
Lines: 29
Nf-ID: #R:hc.DSPO.GOV:-1132300:upba:50100002:000:1160
Nf-From: upba.UUCP!cory    Nov 24 10:02:00 1987


/* Written  4:56 pm  Nov 23, 1987 by hc.UUCP!siegel in upba:comp.bugs.4bsd */
>In article <50100001@upba> cory@upba.UUCP writes:
>>	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.
>
>			--Josh Siegel

	I'll agree that when using "view", having "w>" (or "w>>") default
	write (or append) to the current file goes against the concept of
	"view"ing the file in read only.  However, on our system atleast,
	"view" is just a link to "vi", and as I stated, in "vi" this is not
	a bug.  Maybe to handle this special case, if a flag were set if
	argv[0] matched "view"?...

	Anyway, the original question was presented with file2 given; and
	as such, view or vi, "it's not a bug ... it's a feature".

					-Cory