Can you CC: this as mail to the admins (deepend & ben)?
I don't think I've seen them write here.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Can you CC: this as mail to the admins (deepend & ben)?
I don't think I've seen them write here.
I can & I will.
Perfect! \o/
--
I'm nonbinary. I use Emacs and Nvi.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:
[...]
Perfect! \o/
--
I'm nonbinary. I use Emacs and Nvi.
Traitor! \o/
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Can you CC: this as mail to the admins (deepend & ben)?
I don't think I've seen them write here.
I can & I will.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:
[...]
Perfect! \o/
--
I'm nonbinary. I use Emacs and Nvi.
Traitor! \o/
Thanks to ~deepend, Traditional vi (https://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/) is
now available in ~club:
Binary: /usr/archaic/bin/
Manual: /usr/archaic/share/man/man/man1/
In order to read the man pages, invoke:
MANPATH="/usr/archaic/share/man/man:$MANPATH" man vi
Anton Shepelev <ant@tilde.culb> wrote:
In order to read the man pages, invoke:
MANPATH="/usr/archaic/share/man/man:$MANPATH" man vi
* MANPATH, manpath and Co
I'd leave it to the users whether they want to add those directories to
PATH (and MANPATH) in their dot-files.
Seems setting MANPATH indeed is needed on NetBSD, while on Debian the
man command looks for '.../man' and '.../share/man' in the neighbourhood
of '.../bin' directories mentioned in PATH automagically.
I'm not sure I like that, but sometimes I dare^Wprefer to be lazy. On
my Debian-ish laptop with some bonsais in '/opt' I only add stuff to
PATH (and LD_LIBRARY_PATH if needed) in my dot-files.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ echo $MANPATH
$ ## ==> empty.
$ echo $PATH /opt/uxn/bin:/opt/tcc/bin:/opt/scc/bin:/opt/propellertools/bin:/opt/pcc/bin:/opt/naken_asm/bin:/opt/micropython/bin:/opt/gambit/bin:/opt/elinks/bin:/opt/drawterm/bin:/opt/dillo/bin:/opt/bst/bin:/opt/bacon/bin:/opt/awka/bin:/opt/ack/bin:/home/yeti/bin:/home/yeti/Sync/bin:/usr/lib/ccache:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games
$ manpath /opt/tcc/share/man:/opt/scc/share/man:/opt/pcc/share/man:/opt/gambit/share/man:/opt/elinks/share/man:/opt/drawterm/share/man:/opt/dillo/share/man:/opt/bacon/share/man:/opt/awka/man:/opt/awka/share/man:/opt/ack/share/man:/usr/local/man:/usr/local/share/man:/usr/share/man
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* (File-)Name Conflicts
How name conflicts are handled is a different layer of this.
My solutions ordered by preference:
+ Remove VIM. ;-P
+ Put "the real thing" in front of (MAN)PATH and just forget about VIM.
'man vim' *has* to work and typing vi should launch the original
unless not being installed. In that case using VIM as fallback for VI
may be OK-ish. If VIM's man page isn't available as 'vim.1', send
that as bug report to the maintainers of the VIM package(s).
* Similar Problems (We Should Have Learned From)
I've a similar problem with GAWK users producing '*.awk' scripts full of GAWKisms and additionally GAWK isn't even 100% AWK compatible.
That sucks like the era when early Linux user-land used BASH as default
shell and every other '*.sh' script was full of BASHisms.
* TL;DR
I've no idea, just some strong opinions. ;-P
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Vim is perfecly availaable under its real name, vim, and its
appropriation of the `vi' name is unnecessary and, I hope, optional.
* Similar Problems (We Should Have Learned From)
I've a similar problem with GAWK users producing '*.awk' scripts full of
GAWKisms and additionally GAWK isn't even 100% AWK compatible.
Yeah, righ. And GCC users (call 'em that) prdocing lots of .c files
full of GCC-isms, thanks to the non-conservative defaults. Even with -std=c89 is requires -pedantic to behave.
That sucks like the era when early Linux user-land used BASH as
default shell and every other '*.sh' script was full of BASHisms.
What's the sittation now? Is not `bash' the default again, and so
default that I have trouble finding a true `sh', except by wheelding
`bash' to behave like `sh'.
Anton Shepelev <ant@tilde.culb> wrote:
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Vim is perfecly availaable under its real name, vim, and its
appropriation of the `vi' name is unnecessary and, I hope, optional.
The same should apply to the man pages and IMO that would be a valid >solution. Or am I missing something?
Just getting my 1st caffe??ne, so I might see what I'm missing with a
delay.
* Similar Problems (We Should Have Learned From)
I've a similar problem with GAWK users producing '*.awk' scripts full of >>> GAWKisms and additionally GAWK isn't even 100% AWK compatible.
We now have a GNU locked in syndrome.
The GNU project seems to do exactly what the FOSS world accused others
to do:
/ Embrace, Extend, Exterminate, \
\ Exterminate, Exterminate, ... /
/
___
/___\=<o
[===]
[III]=(
|___|
_ _ _ |___| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Try building e.g. Emacs with a "normal" C compiler. *sigh!*
Or try building GCC4.x or older with a current GCC. I've lost access to
some micro-controllers' GCC based toolchains on today's systems, because
I cannot get them built any more. Ok, I have enough old stuff here that >could run e.g. Debian6 and that would fit again. But does it really
need to be that way?
That sucks like the era when early Linux user-land used BASH as
default shell and every other '*.sh' script was full of BASHisms.
Users naming BASH scripts '*.sh' are one problem, but it was even worse:
Those days BASH was the only shell, so the system (init) scripts were >infected with lots of BASHisms. Now there are ASH, DASH and more >alternatives for keeping BASH away in that area.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Anton Shepelev <ant@tilde.culb> wrote:
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Vim is perfecly availaable under its real name, vim, and its
appropriation of the `vi' name is unnecessary and, I hope, optional.
The same should apply to the man pages and IMO that would be a valid >>solution. Or am I missing something?
Backwards compatiblity, mayhap, in order that existing users that have invoked Vim as `vi' for years shall notice no change. Not all of them
are ready to retrograde their text editing by four decades. I suppse
this is ~deepend's concern.
Just getting my 1st caffe??ne, so I might see what I'm missing with a >>delay.
I drink coffee not on reagular basis, but as a treat -- hand-ground, and brewed. When at the office, we will take an alcohole, burner, jezse, grounds, water, and go down and around the building to brew some:
<https://i.postimg.cc/CwKMKXW5/image.png>
* Similar Problems (We Should Have Learned From)
I've a similar problem with GAWK users producing '*.awk' scripts
full of GAWKisms and additionally GAWK isn't even 100% AWK
compatible.
Such is the general attitude, whereas I consider this... not beautiful,
even if there are not negative consequesces.
We now have a GNU locked in syndrome.
The GNU project seems to do exactly what the FOSS world accused others
to do:
One can use other of doing, and encourage other to do, and your phrase
is a funny fusion of the two. (sorry, I could not help it).
/ Embrace, Extend, Exterminate, \
\ Exterminate, Exterminate, ... /
/
___
/___\=<o
[===]
[III]=(
|___|
_ _ _ |___| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A siege tower?
But does it really need to be that way?
No, it defies the benefit of C as a very portable language, and the
freedom to use /any/ C compiler.
Anton Shepelev <ant@tilde.culb> wrote:
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Anton Shepelev <ant@tilde.culb> wrote:
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
Vim is perfecly availaable under its real name, vim, and its
appropriation of the `vi' name is unnecessary and, I hope, optional.
The same should apply to the man pages and IMO that would be a valid >>>solution. Or am I missing something?
Backwards compatiblity, mayhap, in order that existing users that have
invoked Vim as `vi' for years shall notice no change. Not all of them
are ready to retrograde their text editing by four decades. I suppse
this is ~deepend's concern.
Ok, then the bonsai in '/usr/archaic' or a similar tree in '/opt'
holding ye olden 'vi' would be no change for the users who change
nothing while the ones putting that in front of (MAN)PATH would get the
real thing as default.
I'm using pure caffeine and mix it into whatever I like, which in most
cases is tea.
Often I do not use it for days, but when I smell migraine
in the bio weather, it helps a lot to avoid more complex pharmaceutic >chemicals against those attacks.
Comments about an under-caffeinated status in most cases are just silly >excuses (or a running gag) for whatever just went wrong. E.g.: I often
sit in front of the screen far too fast after opening the eyes.
I've not kept notes, but I remember discussions in AWK's IRC channel
about cases where plain AWK code behaves strange in GAWK. That just
adds to the reasons that GAWK should be considered a different
incompatible language.
/ Embrace, Extend, Exterminate, \
\ Exterminate, Exterminate, ... /
/
___
/___\=<o
[===]
[III]=(
|___|
_ _ _ |___| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A siege tower?
SciFi stuff ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Daleks>
The old ones had, depending on the view angle, a less truncated cone
like base ...
But does it really need to be that way?
No, it defies the benefit of C as a very portable language, and the
freedom to use /any/ C compiler.
Yip. I started using K&R-C on m68000 and apart of different views about
the default integer size I could get my code without problems built with
4 different compilers. Just some IFDEFs to use BYTE, WORD and LONG (as
I was used from 68k assembler as terminology) and the universal macro >assembler named C was happy. My fun with C has shrunk a lot over the
last decades. :.( Let's blame it on the GNUs.
It still may be possible not to use GCCisms, but lots of software does
it and some other compilers (LLVM/CLang) are adopting them to keep a
chance on "the market".
Others (TinyCC, PCC) only adopt some GCCisms.
Ok. I'd jump for joy if "defer" would show up in all C compilers.
That's really help code readability. No evolution is not my demand.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
I am accustomed to a lower-case spelling of command-line programs --
the way they are invoked and named in the man pages, additionally in
italic. Is it from some alternative convention or personal preference
that you capitalise AWK, BASH, &c?
If TinyCC is Tiny C Compiler, then it does not seem to support GCC-isms:
<https://www.bellard.org/tcc/>
Ok. I'd jump for joy if "defer" would show up in all C compilers.
That's really help code readability. No evolution is not my demand.
Well, `defer' is kind of magick, when the code behave in a
non-mechanical manner, doing exactly what is written and at the moment execution reaches that line.
I think it part of C's philosophy, for which reason it retains `goto',
by the way.
Perhaps you would like C3 (if you don't already):
<https://c3-lang.org/> ?
It has `defer', and consequently no `goto'.
There is also Hare:
<https://harelang.org/> , with deferral and no `goto'.
Patricia Ferreira <pferreira@example.com> wrote:
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:
[...]
Perfect! \o/
--
I'm nonbinary. I use Emacs and Nvi.
Traitor! \o/
For some years I had a job where I needed to be flexible about what was installed and what not. The clients' systems were very diverse, but I
could bet on VI being installed.
Being able to survive with ED and VI for basic tasks makes one sleep
better than relying on finding Emacs or being able to "tramp" onto the
target system.
But sure I wouldn't like to write my notes about code without org-babel.
...and on 9front I prefer ED! Take that, ACME!!!
Perhaps you could just specialize produce yourself a static executable
of an editor like sciteco, not far from the GNU EMACS experience. :P
Homepage:
https://rhaberkorn.github.io/sciteco/index.html
Patricia Ferreira <pferreira@example.com> wrote:
Perhaps you could just specialize produce yourself a static executable
of an editor like sciteco, not far from the GNU EMACS experience. :P
Homepage:
https://rhaberkorn.github.io/sciteco/index.html
It's just echoes from the past. I don't have to use editors I don't
like any more. So I just keep enough `vi` in my neurons to get along
with it for fixing some config files.
I'm sure vi is a great editor, mas the EMACS editors after
incorporating a Lisp compiler (very close to Common Lisp) seems unsurmountable.
Patricia Ferreira <pferreira@example.com> wrote:
I'm sure vi is a great editor, [but] the EMACS editors[,] after
incorporating a Lisp compiler (very close to Common Lisp)[,] seems
unsurmountable.
EmacsOS has apps for every thing and its pets, but still today EmacsOS
is bad at multitasking.
yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> writes:
Patricia Ferreira <pferreira@example.com> wrote:
I'm sure vi is a great editor, [but] the EMACS editors[,] after
incorporating a Lisp compiler (very close to Common Lisp)[,] seems
unsurmountable.
EmacsOS has apps for every thing and its pets, but still today EmacsOS
is bad at multitasking.
Yes. How I wish they'll solve this. When I fetch news with Gnus, it
sucks that I have to wait to anything else.
And plan-b, running different stuff in different instances, isn't easily possible with older Emacsens. They may screw up the shared config and
at least cause annoying effects. Newer Emacsens can have per instance rc-files, but the one on my waiting to get upgraded main workhorse still lacks this feature.
Having turned my #Fedibreak into a #Fedisiucide, at least the
mastodon.el instance now is gone for a while[0], but for Babel and GNUS
there still are two running and I better take one down for adding modes
or configuring stuff on the other one.
It feels strange that this, after decades, still is a problem.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 255 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 159:43:12 |
| Calls: | 1,725 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 4,107 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (9,998K bytes) |
| Messages: | 393,013 |
