Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:01:45 -0400 From: "John L. Templer" <green_tiger@comcast.net> To: Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The question of moving vi to /bin Message-ID: <4A441DF9.8080403@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20090625114549.GA26683@ei.bzerk.org> References: <4A430505.2020909@gmail.com> <4A430CDF.2010205@comcast.net> <20090625114549.GA26683@ei.bzerk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ruben de Groot wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:36:31AM -0400, John L. Templer typed: >> ed is an interactive program, and it has always been considered as such, >> at least since BSD 4.2. Way back then there were three main editors, >> ex, vi, and ed. If you had a nice video terminal then you used vi. But >> if you were stuck using a hard copy terminal like a Decwriter, then you >> used ex. And ed was the simplified (dumbed down) editor for newbies. >> >> ed is an interactive program because the user "interacts" with it. You >> give it command, it does something, you give it some more commands, it >> does more stuff, etc. Interactive does not mean screen based. > > ed can be used very well non-interactively. > e.g. a script made by diff -e can be piped to it. > > Ruben > > Yes, that's true. Perhaps I misspoke myself. ed can be used both in interactive mode and in a script, which is what I called "command line mode". However it's not correct to say that ed is not an interactive program, as it definitely can be used interactively. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpEHekACgkQjkAlo11skePV5ACcCZaOsxztyNyWIlNBuTMuL/nu FAYAnRiKFxy+nezfkA0I9Q6Nou9Sc2Ve =SEx6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A441DF9.8080403>