On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 15:51:16 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> You again elided the con-text that showed you were incorrect.

You left out this:

More on vim’s “binary” mode here
<https://vi.stackexchange.com/questions/343/how-to-edit-binary-files-with-
vim>:
It just sets a bunch of options to minimize the chance of screwing up the
file in ways you don’t want. Apart from that, it’s still editing it as a
text file.

On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 21:47:13 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> boringly babbled:
>On 14/09/2024 09:59, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 29.08.2024 21:36, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 29/08/2024 18:44, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>> On 29.08.2024 14:30, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 29/08/2024 09:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Then don't use vim - use an editor that suits your needs.
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> But what makes you think that his needs are not covered by Vim?
>>>
>>> You seem to have missed the point - sorry if I was not clear.
>>>
>>> He complained that he didn't want to learn complicated macros in Vim
>>> just to be able to indent or un-indent lines of code. The solution is
>>> obvious - he should use an editor other than Vim.
>>
>> This is not what I'd call a solution. I'd call it elusion; and in both
>> senses - if he didn't use his editor for that space-indenting because
>> he doesn't know how to do it he could look that up, but it is not any
>> issue to do that, only more laborious than indenting brace structures,
>> and the suggestion to switch to another tool is also elusive because
>> it doesn't address the issue (he would still have to learn how to do
>> it in any other tool). - But that was not the point.
>>
>
>This thread died out two weeks ago, and should have been left there.

To be fair it should have been left in the 1990s.

On 15.09.2024 11:06, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:25:53 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> boringly babbled:
>> [...]
>
> Any sane person uses a dedicated hex editor to edit binary files, not vim
> or emacs.

I suppose you may be right. (Or maybe not?)

Frankly, I rarely edited binary files [with any editor]; for me
that's at best a corner case, and at worst a wrong approach (in
some cases I've seen).

But, to be honest, in the few cases where I did binary editings
I was glad that I could just use the editor I'm used to. And in
such cases I resorted to :!xxd ... sort of data handling from
within the editor I use (Vi/Vim).

Janis

On 14.09.2024 11:34, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 10:06:12 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>
>> On 30.08.2024 04:53, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> Emacs makes no such assumption, and can also edit non-text files.
>>
>> You have obviously no clue.
>
> I have actually used it for that. That’s my “clue” to you.

Yes, I've also edited binary files with Vim. - That's no news.
So what's the "clue"?

Janis

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:48 this Saturday (GMT):
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 18:30:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Subjectively, I prefer early returns over nested ifs:
>
> Nested ifs nest, early returns don’t.

Right, they remove some nesting which makes it easier to read.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:48 this Saturday (GMT):
>
>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 18:30:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Subjectively, I prefer early returns over nested ifs:
>>
>> Nested ifs nest, early returns don’t.
>
> Right, they remove some nesting which makes it easier to read.

Nestability helps with refactorability.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:36:11 -0000 (UTC)
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> boringly babbled:
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:00:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 22:48 this Saturday (GMT):
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Sep 2024 18:30:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Subjectively, I prefer early returns over nested ifs:
>>>
>>> Nested ifs nest, early returns don’t.
>>
>> Right, they remove some nesting which makes it easier to read.
>
>Nestability helps with refactorability.

Hell it does. All it helps with is making the code harder to follow.

On 2024-09-15, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 22:25:53 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> boringly babbled:
>>On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:10:06 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> $ man vim | grep -i binary
>>>
>>> -b Binary mode. A few options will be set that makes it
>>> possible to edit a binary or executable file.
>>
>>Wow, a special mode just to edit binary files, when Emacs can do it in
>>its regular mode.
>
> The 1980s phoned, they want their editor wars back.
>
>>It just sets a bunch of options to minimize the chance of screwing up
>>the file in ways you don’t want. Apart from that, it’s still editing
>>it as a text file.
>
> Any sane person uses a dedicated hex editor to edit binary files, not vim
> or emacs.
>

Emacs has the hexl-mode. Emacs isn't just an editor, it's an Elisp platform.

On 2024-08-19, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> On 2024-08-19 16:59, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:39:33 +0200
>
>>> Initially an ability to trim the system and sometimes to patch a driver
>>> was a huge advantage Linux had over Windows NT.
>>
>> Linux can also load and unload drivers on the fly unlike Windows which AFAIK
>> still requires a reboot each time.
>
> I was talking about monolithic kernel Linux had in 90's. Plug and play,
> kernel modules came much later with much bigger machines. I ran Linux on
> i386 25MHz 4Mb. Try it now.
>

You could load and unload drivers since slackware 4 and before,
even under a 386.

On 2024-08-21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:26:41 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
>> And you don't need to know anything about Linux, UNIX or POSIX to
>> program in C.
>
> I think the point has been made on comp.lang.c more than once, that C
> without POSIX can be a very dull language indeed ...

The C Programming Language 2nd. Ed is not about POSIX, and you can do
a lot with C99. Albeit I prefer Elisp and Common Lisp.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:04:52 -0000 (UTC), Bozo User wrote:

>> Any sane person uses a dedicated hex editor to edit binary files, not
>> vim or emacs.
>>
> Emacs has the hexl-mode. Emacs isn't just an editor, it's an Elisp
> platform.

Hex mode is an option. It’s not required. It so happens the kind of
editing I was doing worked best the way I did it.

Emacs offers you the choice, alternative editors don’t.

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Bozo User wrote:

> On 2024-08-21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:26:41 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> And you don't need to know anything about Linux, UNIX or POSIX to
>>> program in C.
>>
>> I think the point has been made on comp.lang.c more than once, that C
>> without POSIX can be a very dull language indeed ...
>
> ... you can do a lot with C99.

Up to a point. This is the thing: every once in a while, a discussion
about some supposed C feature will founder on the discovery that it is
actually a POSIX feature, not available with standard C on non-POSIX
platforms.

Hang around comp.lang.c for a month or so, and you’ll see what I mean.

> Albeit I prefer Elisp and Common Lisp.

I use lots of languages, including C and JavaScript. I use Elisp to
customize Emacs, and Python for lots of other things. I have even dabbled
with Smalltalk.