On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Pan Tsu <iny...@gmail.com> wrote: > Zhihao Yuan <lich...@gmail.com> writes: > >> If you really want to use vi in a 32MB mem environment, the ex-vi may >> make sense. It consumes 1600KB memory while nvi consumes 2000KB. Note >> that the ee editor uses same amount memory as ex-vi. > > ex-vi memory usage can be reduced a bit, e.g. by ~20% if you drop > -DLISPCODE -DCHDIR -DFASTTAG -DUCVISUAL -DMB -DBIT8 > in particular multibyte support. > >> So basically, if no one disagree that we can drop the infinite undo, >> multiple buffer, multiple window and some other potential missing >> features, we can replace the nvi in the base system with ex-vi. > > If the intent is to make all interactive editors in base unicode aware > then I wonder if you can use similar excuse when window(1) was kicked > out but for missing features, i.e. use ports.
If user accepts the window or even screen in ports, they can also accept ex-vi staying in ports. > > As for other editors, ed(1) seems to support editing UTF-8. I've used it > to read/edit cyrillic and CJK texts in single user mode before found out > about ex-vi. And ee(1)... why not add unicode support there as a GSoC? > ed seems works, but it's not either vi or ex. I'm not typically like ee... I sill wondering why we kept it in base system. It does not work when termcap is not correct, so I still need to use ed in such a case. Same thing happens to ex-vi. -- Zhihao Yuan The best way to predict the future is to invent it. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
