Re: ed(1) as default editor in sh(1)

On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 22:59:42 +0200, [email protected] wrote:

> In commit 684f0c282018583d8983ab6b3218c03da6841159, uwe writes:
> 
> 	TBH, I was a bit incredulous, but sh's own fc _does_ use ed if EDITOR
>     	is not set, though it seems to be the only program in base to do
> 	this.  Speak of a self-fulfilling prophecy...
> 
> IMHO, sh(1) is right here. Ed(1) is the only _line_ editor. Others
> require 2D interface (even if only with curses; that's 2D
> nonetheless).
> 
> Sh(1) has to be useful in case of disaster and very limited (line
> interaction) connection means. Ed(1) is the only vital editor. The
> variable can be defined to suit the user needs, via the
> configuration files so the default can be overwritten.
> 
> ed(1) is in bin/. (external) nvi(1) is in usr.bin/. And this is logical.
> (Even if vi is added to rescue; but you have to have a terminal
> behaving correctly for curses (or the reverse), and there are bugs in
> vi(1).)
> 
> So, IMHO, the default, in code, should stay with ed(1). The question
> would be whether other utilities have the wrong default (depending on
> whether they are considered crucial enough to get things running)...

Oh, I was not trying to denigrate ed(1) or sh(1)'s choice of the
default, or suggest that the default has to change.  I remember times
when ed(1) was _the_ default, but I kinda expected everyone moved on,
so the fact that fc uses ed was indeed a surpise.  Perhaps I didn't
choose the right word to convey that surpise and brought in unintended
negative connotations.

Otherwise - Amen!  I'm not the most savvy ed user, but it saved my
hide on quite a few occasions, that involved dec lp11 (iirc) console
typewriter, broken terminal emulator in windows dialup program, etc...

-uwe