Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!hc!siegel
From: siegel@hc.DSPO.GOV (Josh Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.bugs.4bsd
Subject: Re: vi BUG!!!!
Message-ID: <11635@hc.DSPO.GOV>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 18:28:04 EST
Article-I.D.: hc.11635
Posted: Tue Nov 24 18:28:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 07:13:46 EST
References: <11323@hc.DSPO.GOV> <50100002@upba>
Reply-To: siegel@hc.dspo.gov.UUCP (Josh Siegel)
Organization: Group E-10, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM
Lines: 31


In article <50100002@upba> cory@upba.UUCP writes:
 >
 >>When I do ':w>><return>', I made the mistake of not specifying the file.
 >
 >	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"?...

Actually, since it already checks 'view' against argv[0], they
can just check to see if it is read_only and then they know
if it used view (or specificly set it to be read_only). We
always get back to this case....

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

Correct, and since he specificly specified file2 in his posting,
I guess I must submit. (sob snif...) You have struck the final blow :-)

 >
 >					-Cory

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