From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 7 21:18:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA16806 for current-outgoing; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:18:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from word.smith.net.au (vh1.gsoft.com.au [203.38.152.122]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA16801; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:18:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.gsoft.com.au [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00674; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 13:45:00 +0930 (CST) Message-Id: <199710080415.NAA00674@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: itojun@itojun.org cc: S ren Schmidt , jkh@FreeBSD.ORG (Jordan K. Hubbard), current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Status of perl and tcl in vi? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:55:38 +0900." <28450.876261338@coconut.itojun.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:45:00 +0930 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >> I guess in all the fracas over Tcl, we lost vi's tcl and perl > >> interpreters by default? I'm just now noticing that I can't do :tcl > >> anymore where it used to work, and given that I don't use this feature > >> very often I can also imagine that it might have left us some time ago > >> without my noticing. Weren't we going to allow vi to link with TCL > >> in -current unless NOTCL was set? > >> If we could get perl upgraded to perl5 in the tree, we could include > >> it too, heck. Bloat that vi binary! ;-) > >AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! > > I believe we'd better have very plain configuration (yes, no perl, > no tcl) in /usr/bin/vi , and have ports directory for vi + tcl/perl. > editors/nvi should be a good starting point. vi should be smart enough to dlopen() the relevant shared libraries and selectively enable/disable :tcl/:perl to suit the situation. mike