Re: [TUHS] v7 uucp debugging help requested

[Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]

below...

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:36 PM John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 3:19 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>
> Huh? I've never seen this, in over 20 years of using vim. To
>> insert a newline just use
>>
>>         s/foobar/foo^V^Mbar/
>>
>> where ^V^M are Control-V Control-M.
>>
>
> I never thought of that; I've always tried what works in ed, namely:
>
> s/foobar/foo\
> bar
>
need a closing / for ed, but ex/vi accepts the naked version.




>
> and that gives me
>
> foo^@bar
>
> I call that a bug.  (This is vim 8.1).
>
In fairness, early vi did this too.  nvi (Bostic's rewrite) which came out
around 4.3 or 4.4 fixed it.



>
> It certainly wouldn't occur to me to use ^V^M, anyhow:  ^V^J would seem
> more reasonable, but ^V is ignored in that context.
>
I agree, I have tried to us the ^V^J idiom with different success.  Since
vim has been forced down my throat, I tend to not try it, and as you say,
switch editors when I need to add a newline.

>
> Before vim 7 there was a bug so bad I had to use nvi (and, often enough,
> compile it from source): at that time, undo undid everything back to the
> last action in vi-mode.  If you had never been in vi-mode (as I usually had
> not) it undid everything back to the last file-loading command!  That one
> made me grind my teeth a lot.  Even now I habitually write before undoing,
> just in case.
>
Amen ...   vim's undo can be ...  a ... challenging for original vi user -
but that has been debated here a few times and I'd rather not see another
war.
Clem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3597 bytes --]