From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 24 06:16:33 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6AB71065670 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lichray@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qw0-f54.google.com (mail-qw0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C4F8FC08 for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so7174287qwc.13 for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:16:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cg8ScjGn6nl/BFwON1KJmwoUUGSdzlmZiaXZEpSQRQQ=; b=DTOs8AI09ODz6iaCe8gerqo831+mv/dUZYrvOtQha0GPzilAmXJub9zNqA0u/hl2Ty miS2r7IzJnLivyZ8kwPwTfYCbZ8C+UpIXtigFQ0IGG1+aXZCTV+rznInfGTHH+Qjw9IJ u1EjKxbLFWJOFiNKGtKDlogM/AiFyAJi7kmgc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wx8PBvVK0nGj3PHQletRpvpERAeBmVMz182FwfWxSBnQrCBTw1BJfWk07WMN1s9+Rx J4WvOAaBdeWrWwDsDvqDAt6Y00m59WQ7qOwd4Y6VYAOgHDHEBLT4jyXWf2er9POmf062 NNrMGOpoXaXE0KDH5LH1n94zANZWeGgZaYybQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.61.1 with SMTP id r1mr4471882qah.105.1300947392432; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.20.19 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:16:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86k4fpb2oi.fsf@gmail.com> References: <86mxkm1erm.fsf@gmail.com> <86aaglx1ow.fsf@gmail.com> <86k4fpb2oi.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:16:32 -0500 Message-ID: From: Zhihao Yuan To: Pan Tsu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Arnaud Lacombe Subject: Re: [GSoC] About the idea: Unicode support in vi X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 06:16:34 -0000 On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Pan Tsu wrote: > Zhihao Yuan 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 > =C2=A0-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. --=20 Zhihao Yuan The best way to predict the future is to invent it.