At 11:06 Uhr +0900 2000-02-26, david craig wrote:
>Thanks for clarifying; it's appreciated. A question
>I meant to ask in my first post: Do the version numbers
>of the respective applications have anything to do
>with one another?
>I suppose that the presumption would
>be that the application version number refers to that
>of the port, then?
>(To say it another way, would versions
>5.6 of these two implementations of VIM have, in theory,
>an essential parity in VIM features, differing primarily
>in how the authors went about implementing them, and
>perhaps what goodies above and beyond VIM itself the
>authors throw in?)
MacVim on my page was compiled before 5.6 was available and I left my
compiler just after putting it on my homepage. In the meantime Dany took
the 5.6 release, fixed some bugs and released it on his page.
When I'm back in Germany I will download 5.6 release (+patches) and Dany's
patches and build a new version which I will put on my homepage.
The main differences are:
Dany's version is FAT, I have separate binaries for 68k and PPC
My 68k version has syntax disabled, don't know about Dany's.
My version is compiled with CWPro2 Dany's with CW9 (IIRC).
The rule of thump is:
Whoever has time puts a binary on his page.
who would be surprised to see this on the list, becuase I'm writing from a
different address than my subscribe address.
Adults get far more pleasure from adultery
than children do from infancy