Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: emacs vs vi
Message-ID: <8290@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 1 Aug 88 01:15:19 GMT
References: <16435@brl-adm.ARPA> <422@ns.ns.com> <811@cerebus.UUCP> <1872@stpstn.UUCP> <1288@csuna.UUCP> <1223@unisoft.UUCP> <1225@unisoft.UUCP> <2661@mipos3.intel.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 9

In article <2661@mipos3.intel.com> nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess) writes:
-In article <1225@unisoft.UUCP> greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
->There is one thing that vi has that no other (non-vi, non-ed related)
->editor seems to have: An UNDO feature!
-Yes, an undo feature is nice, but vi's is massively limited.
-GNU Emacs, on the other hand, has a fully featured undo that allows one
-to undo all the way back to an untouched file, one change at a time.

A truly useful "undo" is another thing that "sam" offers.