Mastodawn

R.L. Dane

🍵

Jun 4

#ed #edIsTheStandardTextEditor #edManManEd #Unix #meme #AVIF

@rl_dane :x

Is... that an emoji, or an ex/vi command? ;)

Show thread

Reto 🇺🇦🇪🇺🇨🇭Jun 5

@rl_dane It is what one should use in vi/vim instead of :wq

Interesting. vi's manpage is "clear as mud" on the topic:

     [Ee]x[!] [+cmd] [file]
            Edit a different file.
...
     [range] x[it][!] [file]
            Write the file if it has been modified.

But vim's help (editing.txt) is actually helpful:

							*:x* *:xit*
:[range]x[it][!] [++opt] [file]
			Like ":wq", but write only when changes have been
			made.
			When 'hidden' is set and there are more windows, the
			current buffer becomes hidden, after writing the file.
			This command is not supported in |Vim9| script,
			because it is too easily confused with a variable
			name.

							*:exi* *:exit*
:[range]exi[t][!] [++opt] [file]
			Same as :xit.

I'll have to start using :x. ;)

Show thread

JdeBP Jun 6

@rl_dane

nvi of course, as you know.

The problem with #nvi's manual is that it is employing two different uses of []. For [Ee] it's doing the conventional set of characters to match thing, as the commands are actually Ex and ex, for everything else [] is indicating an optional string, not a set at all. [Ee][dit] on the line above is an even worse example.

Amusingly: For genuine Joy+Horton #vi, not only is all this on the ex(1) manual page instead, but it is a lot clearer, in part because actual vi doesn't support uppercasing its ex command to Ex.

https://illumos.org/man/1HAS/ex#additional-ex-command-arguments

@rettichschnidi

#ex