Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Nicholas Wourms Subject: Re: Cygwin survey: Next vim version with perl support? Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:09:26 -0400 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <3EAFF536.8050603@netscape.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet AT main DOT gmane DOT org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Enigmail-Version: 0.74.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2003, Gareth Pearce wrote: > > >>>(*) Personally, I think perl support in vim would be nice, but I'm >>>absolutely against adding a perl dependence to the vim package. There's >>>no reason to drag in yet another 6.5M of stuff if all I want is an editor. >>>If that were desirable, I'd just install emacs. >> >>if 'all i want is an editor' then why get vim at all. >>;) >> >>Gareth - no bias here, move along, nothing to see. > > > Because the "cat/sed" combination is much harder to use :) > > On second thought, make that a "visual editor"... > Igor For the extremely masochistic, there's always just plain old `ed`. Cheers, Nicholas -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/