[Info-vax] Intel proposal to simplify x86-64

[Scott Dorsey]

Rich Alderson  <news at alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:
>jgd at cix.co.uk (John Dallman) writes:
>
>> In article <u5s84c$1fo4c$1 at dont-email.me>, news at cct-net.co.uk (Chris
>> Townley) wrote:
>
>>> I do know vi(m) and use it a lot on Unix/Linux systems - like EVE 
>>> on VMS it is always there. However I choose not to use it for more 
>>> than simple changes - I would never use it to write any code
>
>> I found vi baffling on first exposure, and the only commands I know in it
>> are for getting out again. If vi or vim is the available screen editor,
>> I'll resort to ed or ex. 
>
>I only know enough vi to edit the password file (using the vipw command), or in
>the old days before autoconfiguration I could edit the Emacs configuration files
>to install a decent editor.

What you need to know about vi above all is that it's modal.  If you don't
know what is going on, hit escape and it will put you back into the default
operating mode.  The second thing you need to know is that unlike emacs, you
cannot edit something that isn't there; the end of a line is the end of a 
line and there is nothing past it until you add something.

Given these two pieces of information you can read the introduction to vi
that is in the Berkeley 4.1 manual and figure out how to use vi.

vi is an extension to ed... all the ed commands still work in it, but you
also get visual editing as a side-effect.  It's a line editor with a screen
editor added to it.  What makes it powerful is that it still has all the 
sophisticated command line tools of the line editor.  What makes it convenient
is that it has screen editing functions.

Now, there's stuff that you can't do easily in vi, like working with columns.
It's a terrible choice for doing ascii art.  But for text, I rather like it.
--scott


-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."