Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!littlei!intelisc!omepd!mipos3!nate
From: nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: emacs vs vi
Keywords: editor depends upon what I'm doing...
Message-ID: <2661@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 27 Jul 88 18:16:23 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>
Reply-To: nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 22

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!  How many times have you really
>trashed something in one swell foop and been grateful to have that 'u'
>key handy?  How many times have you not had it handy and wished you
>had?

Yes, an undo feature is nice, but vi's is massively limited.  For
example, if you accidentally have the shift lock key engaged and press 5 or
6 'J's, you're hosed, since pressing 'u' will only undo the last one of
them -- your file still looks like a bloody mess, and the only way to
"recover" is to :q!.

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.

--woodstock
-- 
	   "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?"

...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!nate
<domainish> :   nate@mipos3.intel.com		ATT :    (408) 765-4309