Re: editors/ex is really vi

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 07:29:27PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
 >     Date:        Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:43:06 +0000
 >     From:        David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%NetBSD.org@localhost>
 >     Message-ID:  <20121228054306.GA27741%netbsd.org@localhost>
 > 
 >   | The code that I just spent longer than I intended cleaning out, in
 >   | editors/ex, is actually the original ("one true") vi. While it also
 >   | includes ex, vi is the thing people know about... is there some reason
 >   | it's packaged under the name "ex" rather than "vi"?
 > 
 > ex is its real name - vi is just the "visual" command, one of ex's
 > operating modes.
 > [...]

Well, I'm not going to argue with that. I do wonder though if users
who might want to use it would be more likely to find it if it were
called vi.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost