From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5862 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2012 17:43:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-users-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Users List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 17357 Received: (qmail 17764 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2012 17:43:14 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) From: Bart Schaefer Message-id: <121027104249.ZM8389@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:42:49 -0700 In-reply-to: Comments: In reply to shawn wilson "Re: change inside" (Oct 27, 9:16am) References: X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: Zsh Users Subject: Re: change inside MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Oct 27, 9:16am, shawn wilson wrote: } } thanks for the pointers. i'll look at what it'll take to script this } out. however, (and i didn't ask this directly because i was unsure if } there was just a feature i had missed) what is the general idea behind } the vi mode in zsh? is this a feature that is meant to stay compatible } with bash/tcsh/etc? or is this meant to bring as much of the vim } command set as possible, but without being cumbersome into zsh? The philosophy *was* to remain as close as possible to the ORIGINAL "vi" and *avoid* any of the new features introduced by the slew of replacement vi-like editors, only one of which at the time was vim. Of course "new features" now means "features less than 20 years old" ... I won't attempt to assert that this still *is* the philosophy, because ever since zsh stopped being interesting as a project for university computer science students to hack on, we've had a hard time finding enough volunteer programmers to change much of anything, and vi mode in the line editor is not something users have been clamoring about. So to that extent there's not much philosophy other than the overarching zsh concept of "don't break anything that's been working for years." I will say that vim is one of the reasons I became an emacs user. The whole point of vi, for me, was to create my own custom macros and attach them to unused keystrokes; if my custom macros aren't loaded, I expect those keystrokes to beep at me, not go off doing some new thing I have no idea how to unwind because the undo action has been "improved". I don't think there's any such thing as an "unused keystroke" in vim, now. Sigh, pardon the curmudgeonly rant, but "don't break anything ..."