[Toybox] [PATCH] vi: added backspace

[Rob Landley]

On 2/1/23 15:18, enh via Toybox wrote:
> heh, to be clear: i wasn't "dissing" drive-by patching. it accounts
> for at least 80% of my entire career :-)

https://landley.net/toybox/downloads/binaries/mkroot/0.8.9/linux-patches/

> i use the term just to acknowledge that for some things -- like this
> -- there isn't anyone else who's actually working on the thing full
> time, which is my personal rationale for wanting "the simplest thing
> that could possibly work", and why my definition of "simple" is
> something like "the most easily understood by an average programmer
> who hasn't seen this particular code before".

I mean to take custody of this thing this year. I'm trying to get to a 1.0
release, which means (among other things) emptying the pending directory entirely.

I do admit vi is something I haven't worked out how to regression test yet, but
dogfooding it would presumably cover a multitude of sins. (I do edit both my
code and my blog in vi...)

> (and, yes, in addition to the open() error -- which at least led to a
> small simplification of the code -- i've shot myself in the foot by
> forgetting that there even are vi tests, not running them, and
> breaking them with my recent commit, which i'll have to do something
> about before i can sync to AOSP.

Huh, I forgot that too. :)

Ok, "vi -s" is a good start...

> i'll admit i'm very tempted to just
> locally ignore those tests for now so i can get people kicking the
> `tar --sort=name` tires asap, and coming back to worry about vi
> later!)

You have applied quantum indeterminacy to "pending" status. It is simultaneously
pending and not pending.

I'm kind of impressed.

Rob