Hello Maurice,

On 06 Mar 16 17:53, Maurice Kinal wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 NB>> Consider this my first post to you using nano straight from the
 NB>> BBS, with some quoting/formatting scripting to go along with it!

 MK> It looks perfect from this angle.  I note that your paragraphs are
 MK> unbounded as they should be.

Great news!

 NB>> For the record, "usr/bin/vim -Z" is also being tested here with
 NB>> the same goodness. :)

 MK> I would prefer that but I understand that nano would be mnch easier to
 MK> use for most users.

I'm tinkering back and forth with a couple options. Trying to decide if it
would be easier and/or better to force "nocompatible" so that it always starts
in insert mode. But then the user would have to know that CTRL-L is the only
way to get back to normal mode. I may just leave it as is in that regard.

 NB>> What issue would that be?

 MK> On new posts I am seeing hard returns at the end of the line - ~100
 MK> characters in my case.  I'll post an unfixed example later today to
 MK> show you what happens. I haven't applied the
 MK> softwrap.breakpt.5057.patch you told me about way back when but will
 MK> try that to see what happens with v2.5.3.

I haven't applied any patches to 2.5.2 over here, including that one.

 NB>> I still have to work on some remapping of certain buttons, as it
 NB>> doesn't seem to get along with some things.

 MK> Interesting.  Are you using the gui version?  I am not aware of any
 MK> key combinations in vim that might interfere or conflict with the
 MK> usual BBS ones.

I'm not sure if it has to do with the BBS being in CP437 mode and vim being
loaded in UTF-8 mode, but I'm fairly certain it has something to do with it.
The arrow keys did not work right until I copied the vimrc_example to my home
directory, and now when I get to athe beginning or end of a line and try to
arrow left or right, it displays a bullet. So still not quite perfect, but I'm
gaining headway.

Odd that nano doesn't have any of the issues I'm having with vim though.

 MK> Let me know about softwrap.breakpt.5057.patch as I'll have to document
 MK> where I got it from if it turns out to be an absolute must have
 MK> regarding this and future issues using nano for fidonet messaging.

I don't think I've used that patch since my original instance. Any time I've
upgraded I just went without it in hopes that someday it would be added to the
sources. :(

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160201