[gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[Supreme]

I have a odd issue with vim. The undo last action command which is (u)
does not work in vi. The undo all changes command (Shift+u) works just
fine. Anyone ever run into this problem or know how I can fix this
issue. This problem is related to all the user on the system not just
one user. This is the error I get when I try to use the undo command:
"'u' is not implemented" . I am using version 7.2.021 of vim. I have
this same version installed on a 64 bit version of Gentoo and I am not
seeing this problem.

J.J.

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 03:16:43AM -0600, Supreme wrote:

>           This is the error I get when I try to use the undo command:
> "'u' is not implemented" . I am using version 7.2.021 of vim. I have
> this same version installed on a 64 bit version of Gentoo and I am not
> seeing this problem.

Do you have gvim installed ? If so, do you get the same issue ?
I would check the /usr/share/vim/vimrc file first.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[Supreme]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 972 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[smallnow]

do you have a ~/.vimrc?
Try
:map u
and see if there is a mapping.

- Ian

Supreme wrote:
> Thanks for your reply,
> 
> I dont have gvim installed. I'll install it and see if I get the same error.

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[Supreme]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 972 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command - don't do top posting

[KH]

Supreme schrieb:
> I went ahead and installed gvim as Nicolas suggested. I did not have
> any problems undoing changes in gvim. After further investigation I
> only have this problem when I run vi. If I do vim undo works also. The
> only thing I have in my home dir that's related to vi is .viminfo
> which a history file.
>
> J.J.
>
> smallnow wrote:
>> do you have a ~/.vimrc?
>> Try
>> :map u
>> and see if there is a mapping.
>>
>> - Ian
>>
>> Supreme wrote:
>>   
>>> Thanks for your reply,
>>>
>>> I dont have gvim installed. I'll install it and see if I get the same error.
>>>     
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command

[Supreme]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 1823 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] VIM Undo Command - don't do top posting

[Stroller]

On 8 Dec 2008, at 13:21, KH wrote:
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Could I possibly ask you to refrain from making replies to the list  
with this as the only contribution?

I refer also to your posts of 3 December 2008 09:09:59 GMT & 24  
October 2008 08:48:20 BST.

I see now that on this occasion you've been sensible enough to add to  
the subject line, but my initial assumption is that this is a "bug" of  
some sort and that some idiot has replied with only their signature.  
It is clearly very irritating to have to scroll through a whole long  
message of unabridged quoted text, to find nothing relevant to the  
subject.

I personally think that you'll never win the war against top-posting.  
But then my personal grudge is against those who quote in the opposite  
fashion to those who preceded them in the thread - I find a flow of  
quoting that is interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short message  
sections, all concise, clear and top-posted, that you replied to.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] [OT] top posting

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0000, Stroller wrote:

>                                            I find a flow of quoting that is 
> interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short message sections, all 
> concise, clear and top-posted, that you replied to.

Top-posting just sucks. Whole quoting too.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] top posting

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 380 bytes --]

Nicolas Sebrecht schrieb:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0000, Stroller wrote:
>
>   
>>                                            I find a flow of quoting that is 
>> interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short message sections, all 
>> concise, clear and top-posted, that you replied to.
>>     
>
> Top-posting just sucks. Whole quoting too.
>
>   
+1


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] top posting

[Dale]

Justin wrote:
> Nicolas Sebrecht schrieb:
>   
>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0000, Stroller wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>>                                            I find a flow of quoting that is 
>>> interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short message sections, all 
>>> concise, clear and top-posted, that you replied to.
>>>     
>>>       
>> Top-posting just sucks. Whole quoting too.
>>
>>   
>>     
> +1
>
>   

+1

Dale

:-)

[gentoo-user] Re: [OT] top posting

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Indeed :)

(Sorry, couldn't resist :P)

Dale wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>> Nicolas Sebrecht schrieb:
>>   
>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0000, Stroller wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>>>>                                            I find a flow of quoting that is 
>>>> interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short message sections, all 
>>>> concise, clear and top-posted, that you replied to.
>>>>     
>>>>       
>>> Top-posting just sucks. Whole quoting too.
>>>
>>>   
>>>     
>> +1
>>
>>   
> 
> +1
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)
> 
> 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] top posting

[KH]

Nikos Chantziaras schrieb:
> Indeed :)
>
> (Sorry, couldn't resist :P)
>
> Dale wrote:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Nicolas Sebrecht schrieb:
>>>  
>>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 12:45:16PM +0000, Stroller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>>                                            I find a flow of
>>>>> quoting that is interrupted FAR less legible than the 3 short
>>>>> message sections, all concise, clear and top-posted, that you
>>>>> replied to.
>>>>>           
>>>> Top-posting just sucks. Whole quoting too.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> +1
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
>
rofl