In vim it's not necessary unless you use a modifier like g or c at the
end.
I'm not sure about "standard" vi, tho.
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Guilherme Pinto wrote:
> Couldn't agree more, but... didn't you forget to close your subtitution with a
>trailing slash?
>
> :25,45 s/^/#/
>
> vi Rocks
>
ECTED]
> Subject: RE: Re: Editor
>
> You know at the risk of starting a huge flamewar here (tho I doubt it'll
> happen - people seem really reasonable on this list) I'm going to put in
> my $0.02 for not just learning vi, but becoming fluent with it:
>
> 1. It&#x
er entirely in vi or with vi and perl
combined. That's when things get real fun :-)
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Daryl J. Hoyt wrote:
> I use vi only when nothing else is available. ;->
>
> -Original Message-
> From: anton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 06,
I use vi only when nothing else is available. ;->
-Original Message-
From: anton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 8:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re: Editor
I've listen to you all about the editors problem
Is anybody out there still using the ol
You mean there something other than vi? Do you mean vim?
On 06 Jul 2001 16:07:36 +0300, anton wrote:
> I've listen to you all about the editors problem
> Is anybody out there still using the old bottom-dweller vi ?
>
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:48:53 +0200, Matija Papec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've listen to you all about the editors problem
Is anybody out there still using the old bottom-dweller vi ?
On Fri, 06 Jul 2001 14:48:53 +0200, Matija Papec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aigner-Torres, Mario" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi Bill,
> >
> >my choice is gnuemacs
>
> Does it suppo
