Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!ig!uwmcsd1!nic.MR.NET!umn-cs!ns!ddb From: ddb@ns.ns.com (David Dyer-Bennet) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: vi vs emacs in a student enviro Message-ID: <423@ns.ns.com> Date: 12 Jul 88 21:54:10 GMT References: <370@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <47800011@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <1045@ficc.UUCP> Organization: Network Systems Corp. Mpls MN Lines: 28 In article <1045@ficc.UUCP>, peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > ...and the overloading of > non-printable characters is a royal pain [in emacs]... Depends what you edit. I insert non-printing characters other than space and return often enough to remember how to quote, and use it several times a month. > ...but the regular expression capabilities almost > makes up for it. [in vi] VI regular expressions are essentially identical to Gnu emacs or Epsilon regular expressions, near as I can tell. > The ^U convention for counts in Emacs is nice, but it'd be cleaner > to cons up counts out of ALT-0 through ALT-9. The Emacs I've used do this. Also Alt--, don't forget negative args. > Search commands should > be (as in VI) actually part of the range-specifier (search with alt-/). I find it easier to define a range by actually going to the limits of it, so I can be sure they're where I thought they were. Then having defined a region, it's easy to apply a command to a range. I don't like the way VI does it, it's too dangerous. Besides, most searches are for things I want to look at, not things I want to do something too. -- -- David Dyer-Bennet ...!{rutgers!dayton | amdahl!ems | uunet!rosevax}!umn-cs!ns!ddb ddb@viper.Lynx.MN.Org, ...{amdahl,hpda}!bungia!viper!ddb Fidonet 1:282/341.0, (612) 721-8967 hst/2400/1200/300