Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 13:39:15 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee>, "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu>, bvsmith@lbl.gov, ports%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, gj%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, me%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu, asami%freebsd.org@sunrise.cs.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: xfig.3.1.4 extension to support vi -C signals linkage Message-ID: <8204.839795955@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 11 Aug 1996 15:49:02 EDT." <Pine.OSF.3.95.960811154714.10084D-100000@thurston.eng.umd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I want to hear from Julian, does adding this functionality make any > difference to how the port works in the absence of a patched vi? I'm I've never liked the fact that this requires modifications of the ports themselves - this should *not* be the case, and if vi needs a more general foreign execution-and-data-exchange model then that's what should be written, not ad-hack changes to each and every port which you want to make "vi aware." That's simply the wrong way of solving the problem. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8204.839795955>