[nmh-workers] Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
77 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Steffen Nurpmeso
Robert Elz <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |    Date:        Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100
 |    From:        Steffen Nurpmeso <[hidden email]>
 |    Message-ID:  <20180320144337.zM2RO%[hidden email]>
 |
 || BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
 || known released file which acted otherwise.
 |
 |Including in the first BSD distribution tape (1BSD) before vi existed (also
 |before csh existed, but that's unrelated...) ??
 |
 |This also predates the use of SCCS (or any other revision control system)
 |at UCB.

Now you got me.  No.
(Things that happened in the past only happened in your mind.
So, forget your mind, and you'll be: free.)

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ken Hornstein-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
>That reminds me, whatnow(1) needs a `visual'.

I'm not sure that's true ... you have always been able to supply your own
editor to "edit" at the whatnow prompt.

--Ken

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Bakul Shah
In reply to this post by Robert Elz
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:57:28 +0700 Robert Elz <[hidden email]> wrote:
Robert Elz writes:
>     Date:        Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100
>     From:        Steffen Nurpmeso <[hidden email]>
>     Message-ID:  <20180320144337.zM2RO%[hidden email]>
>
>   | BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
>   | known released file which acted otherwise.
>
> Including in the first BSD distribution tape (1BSD) before vi existed (also
> before csh existed, but that's unrelated...) ??

I looked at 1bsd and 2bsd distributions. I don't see Mail in
1bsd but it is included in 2bsd and uses VISUAL for ~v and
EDITOR for ~e.

There is an attempt to emulate getenv for v6 but it only
emulates HOME and SHELL, derived from getpw().  So on v6 only
the compiled in defaults for EDITOR and VISUAL would work.

2bsd READ_ME shows a date of Apr 19, 1979
1bsd READ_ME has no date but TAPE shows Jan 16, 1978

And yes, csh was also in 2bsd!

[All this is from the stuff archived @ TUHS. I didn't actually
use Unix until v7 and starting mid 1981. May be some folks
reading the TUHS list can provide more direct knowledge.]

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Andy Bradford-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -0000:

> For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor
> have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR.  :-)

You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)

http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?udc=1&ln=1180-1186+1196-1204&name=8d7c320c6bbe086b

Andy
--
TAI64 timestamp: 400000005ab16cc3



--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul Vixie-2


Andy Bradford wrote:
> Thus said Ralph Corderoy on Tue, 20 Mar 2018 12:56:09 -0000:
>
>> For evermore, programs that only offer one means of invoking an editor
>> have had to checking first $VISUAL, falling back to $EDITOR.  :-)
>
> You mean like the following chunk of code: :-)
>
> http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?udc=1&ln=1180-1186+1196-1204&name=8d7c320c6bbe086b

here's how crontab(1) does it:

>                         /* what editor to use if no EDITOR or VISUAL
>                          * environment variable specified.
>                          */
> #if defined(_PATH_VI)
> # define EDITOR _PATH_VI
> #else
> # define EDITOR "/usr/ucb/vi"
> #endif
>
> ...
>
>         if (((editor = getenv("VISUAL")) == NULL || *editor == '\0') &&
>             ((editor = getenv("EDITOR")) == NULL || *editor == '\0')) {
>                 editor = EDITOR;
>         }



--
P Vixie


--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy
In reply to this post by Steffen Nurpmeso
Hi Steffen,

> > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL
> > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of
> > the default values.  Kurt Shoens, [hidden email], is down
> > as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of
> > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
>
> BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
> known released file which acted otherwise.

But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just after
BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and has `~e' but
no `~v'.
https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr

By the time of BSD-1-54-ge684660a6a2, src/Mail/Mail.help.~ lists both.
https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/e684660a6a291c1e4672912bc1b80ffb00934623/src/Mail/Mail.help.%7E

So although the released code had both, I think it's likely that `~e'
was there on its own, and then `~v' added as ex's vi mode came along.
I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR' for one
and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one came first
rather than both together.

--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul Fox-3
ralph wrote:
 > Hi Steffen,
 >
 > > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL
 > > > and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of
 > > > the default values.  Kurt Shoens, [hidden email], is down
 > > > as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of
 > > > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
 > >
 > > BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
 > > known released file which acted otherwise.
 >
 > But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just after
 > BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and has `~e' but
 > no `~v'.
 > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr
 >
 > By the time of BSD-1-54-ge684660a6a2, src/Mail/Mail.help.~ lists both.
 > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/e684660a6a291c1e4672912bc1b80ffb00934623/src/Mail/Mail.help.%7E
 >
 > So although the released code had both, I think it's likely that `~e'
 > was there on its own, and then `~v' added as ex's vi mode came along.
 > I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR' for one
 > and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one came first
 > rather than both together.
 >

i love this mailing list.

=----------------------
paul fox, [hidden email] (arlington, ma, where it's 31.3 degrees)


--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Paul Vixie-2


Paul Fox wrote:
> ...
>
> i love this mailing list.

i keep trying to leave, but, i can't!

--
P Vixie


--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Bakul Shah
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi Steffen,
>
>>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL
>>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of
>>> the default values.  Kurt Shoens, [hidden email], is down
>>> as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of
>>> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
>>
>> BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
>> known released file which acted otherwise.
>
> But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just after
> BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and has `~e' but
> no `~v'.
> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr

<nitpick>
This is a doc. bug! ~v is mentioned in mail7.nr in the
same fc8c50acc0 "commit". This has April 19, 1979 date.
The same as the 2bsd date on TUHS unix-archives. See my
previous message. ~v was already in!

> By the time of BSD-1-54-ge684660a6a2, src/Mail/Mail.help.~ lists both.
> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/e684660a6a291c1e4672912bc1b80ffb00934623/src/Mail/Mail.help.%7E
>
> So although the released code had both, I think it's likely that `~e'
> was there on its own, and then `~v' added as ex's vi mode came along.
> I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR' for one
> and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one came first
> rather than both together.

This is in mail7.nr but looking at the sources, it is 'VISUAL'
so I suspect this is another doc. bug (both bugs are also in
doc/Mail/mail{3,7}.nr in the 2bsd dist. on TUHS).
</nitpick>

:-)



--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy
Hi Bakul,

> > > > mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one
> >
> > But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just
> > after BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and
> > has `~e' but no `~v'.
> > https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr
>
> <nitpick>
> This is a doc. bug!

Yes, and very handy it is too since it shows that `~e' existed, was
documented, and then `~v' added without updating *all* the
documentation.

> ~v is mentioned in mail7.nr in the same fc8c50acc0 "commit". This has
> April 19, 1979 date.  The same as the 2bsd date on TUHS unix-archives.
> See my previous message. ~v was already in!

Yes, I've not suggested `~v' wasn't in BSD 2;  it clearly was.  BSD 1's
mtimes finish 1978-02-01 09:53:23 -0800 and then the first we see of
what becomes BSD 2 is 1979-04-18 21:00:16a -0800, with these mtimes
becoming the commit times in git.  In those couple of months `~e' and
`~v' get added.  As Steffen said, there was no release of Mail with one
and not the other.

As for BSD 2 being 1979-04-19, that would seem to miss out lots of the
commits in that git repository so one of them, at least, seems wrong.
:-)

    git log --pretty='%h  %ai  %s' Research-V5..BSD-2

> > I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR'
> > for one and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one
> > came first rather than both together.
>
> This is in mail7.nr but looking at the sources, it is 'VISUAL' so I
> suspect this is another doc. bug (both bugs are also in
> doc/Mail/mail{3,7}.nr in the 2bsd dist. on TUHS).

Yes, another documentation bug, another thing leaving a trail of how it
changed over time.  I agree it's what became VISUAL, but it not being
that from the start indicates to me that EDITOR already existed, thus
`~e', when VISEDITOR was added.  :-)

--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Steffen Nurpmeso
In reply to this post by Bakul Shah
Bakul Shah <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:57:28 +0700 Robert Elz <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |Robert Elz writes:
 |>     Date:        Tue, 20 Mar 2018 15:43:37 +0100
 |>     From:        Steffen Nurpmeso <[hidden email]>
 |>     Message-ID:  <20180320144337.zM2RO%[hidden email]>
 |>
 |>| BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
 |>| known released file which acted otherwise.
 |>
 |> Including in the first BSD distribution tape (1BSD) before vi existed \
 |> (also
 |> before csh existed, but that's unrelated...) ??
 |
 |I looked at 1bsd and 2bsd distributions. I don't see Mail in
 |1bsd but it is included in 2bsd and uses VISUAL for ~v and
 |EDITOR for ~e.

No, it cannot be in 1BSD if we trust

  /*
   * Mail -- a mail program
   *
   * Author: Kurt Shoens (UCB) March 25, 1978
   */

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Steffen Nurpmeso
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
Hello Ralph.

Ralph Corderoy <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL
 |>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of
 |>> the default values.  Kurt Shoens, [hidden email], is down
 |>> as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of
 |>> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
 |>
 |> BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
 |> known released file which acted otherwise.
 |
 |But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just after
 |BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and has `~e' but
 |no `~v'.
 |https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d35\
 |08770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr
 |
 |By the time of BSD-1-54-ge684660a6a2, src/Mail/Mail.help.~ lists both.
 |https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/e684660a6a291c1e4672912\
 |bc1b80ffb00934623/src/Mail/Mail.help.%7E
 |
 |So although the released code had both, I think it's likely that `~e'
 |was there on its own, and then `~v' added as ex's vi mode came along.
 |I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR' for one
 |and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one came first
 |rather than both together.

Ok, i do not have Spinellis repo locally (yet), it is too big.
(How large is it in the end, Ralph?)

Looking at github i see at the same commit [1], and just in case
i do that right, that both of the `edit' and `visual' commands are
already available, so maybe ~v had only been forgotten by that
time?

  It is often useful to be able to invoke one of two editors,
  based on the type of terminal one is using.  To invoke
  a display oriented editor, you can use the
  .b visual
  command.  The operation of the
  .b visual
  command is otherwise identical to that of the
  .b edit
  command.

  [1] https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail6.nr

Really a shame i do not have Spinellis repo yet.  In the repo
i only have history back to 2BSD...
Ciao,

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Steffen Nurpmeso
In reply to this post by Bakul Shah
Bakul Shah <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:04 PM, Ralph Corderoy <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |>>> mail(1) had the `~e' escape and then added a `~v' one, with VISUAL
 |>>> and EDITOR environment variables echoing the cpp(1) macro names of
 |>>> the default values.  Kurt Shoens, [hidden email], is down
 |>>> as the author in BSD-1-253-gc145e9e0ab5 of
 |>>> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
 |>>
 |>> BSD Mail had both of ~v and ~e from the very start.  I know of no
 |>> known released file which acted otherwise.
 |>
 |> But peering at doc/Mail/mail3.nr in BSD-1-3-gfc8c50acc08, so just after
 |> BSD 1 was cut, I see it documents all the tilde escapes and has `~e' but
 |> no `~v'.
 |> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/fc8c50acc0870bf28753d\
 |> 3508770428682e915bb/doc/Mail/mail3.nr
 |
 |<nitpick>
 |This is a doc. bug! ~v is mentioned in mail7.nr in the
 |same fc8c50acc0 "commit". This has April 19, 1979 date.
 |The same as the 2bsd date on TUHS unix-archives. See my
 |previous message. ~v was already in!

It was in in 2BSD, yes.

 |> By the time of BSD-1-54-ge684660a6a2, src/Mail/Mail.help.~ lists both.
 |> https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo/blob/e684660a6a291c1e46729\
 |> 12bc1b80ffb00934623/src/Mail/Mail.help.%7E
 |>
 |> So although the released code had both, I think it's likely that `~e'
 |> was there on its own, and then `~v' added as ex's vi mode came along.
 |> I also noticed that Mail's string option was at one point `EDITOR' for one
 |> and `VISEDITOR' for the other;  also suggestive that one came first
 |> rather than both together.
 |
 |This is in mail7.nr but looking at the sources, it is 'VISUAL'
 |so I suspect this is another doc. bug (both bugs are also in
 |doc/Mail/mail{3,7}.nr in the 2bsd dist. on TUHS).
 |</nitpick>

Only EDITOR and VISUAL in 2BSD, yes.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Valdis Klētnieks
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 18:15:08 -0000, Ralph Corderoy said:
> Hi Jon,
>
> > Things always get weird as one's installed distribution gets crusty.
> > My Fedora Core 27 installation
>
> What is Fedora Core 27?  :-)  Fedora 26 is the latest version, so 27
> might be Fedora Devel, but then you said it's crusty as if the 27 is a
> typo for something older, but they stopped calling it Core with Core 6,
> which is very crusty;  2006.

Fedora 26 is ancient history.. :)

[~] cat /etc/redhat-release
Fedora release 29 (Rawhide)

(Finally catching up after 2 busy weeks..)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

attachment0 (497 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy
In reply to this post by Steffen Nurpmeso
Hi Steffen,

> Ok, i do not have Spinellis repo locally (yet), it is too big.
> (How large is it in the end, Ralph?)

1.5 GiB.  Too large to pull home with ADSL.  I've a VM out on the
Internet that has fast connectivity and I copied it there.

But don't worry about replying after a delay.  I've nmh emails that are
months old that I still intend to process.  :-)

--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Ralph Corderoy
In reply to this post by Valdis Klētnieks
Hi Valdis,

> > What is Fedora Core 27?  :-)  Fedora 26 is the latest version
>
> Fedora 26 is ancient history.. :)
>
> [~] cat /etc/redhat-release
> Fedora release 29 (Rawhide)

Yes, Jon Steinhart also pointed out I was wrong privately, to share the
credit.  I took it from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora_version_history that shows 27 is
the latest version in the detail, but the section headings at the start
stopped at 26.  :-)

--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unnecessary dependency on vi???

Steffen Nurpmeso
In reply to this post by Ralph Corderoy
Ralph Corderoy <[hidden email]> wrote:
 |> Ok, i do not have Spinellis repo locally (yet), it is too big.
 |> (How large is it in the end, Ralph?)
 |
 |1.5 GiB.  Too large to pull home with ADSL.  I've a VM out on the
 |Internet that has fast connectivity and I copied it there.

Interesting idea... but is has to wait.  I remember a message of
a github staff member who was sympathetic to the community because
the average member used far less space than github would have
offered.  Must have been 2011 or something.  I.e., different to
some other formerly large player i expect Spinellis repo to be
available until i finally upgrade my little one...

 |But don't worry about replying after a delay.  I've nmh emails that are
 |months old that I still intend to process.  :-)

Inbox first, yes.  Of course!

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
1234