Re: new vim binary for OS X (Jaguar)
I just wanted to note that this still has the problem that hitting
Ctrl-C while running a shell script causes all processes to die,
and for me to return to the Mac OS X login screen.
If i run Vim from the command line, it behaves propertly, so my
workaround is to write an alias, and never launch Vim from the dock or
by double-clicking the icon, but this is not ideal.
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 12:26:04 -0500, Benji Fisher benji-at-member.AMS.org |vim-mac@.../1.0-Allow| wrote:
> Vim Mac users:
> I have just uploaded a nre version of vim for OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) at
- Benji Fisher sez:
} Rain Dog wrote:
} >Note that the patch doesn't address the problem of Vim not forking
} >when it is launched from the command line--that is, Vim launched as
} >"/Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -g" behaves like
} >"/Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -fg".
} Maybe I do not understand the problem correctly. In :help
} gui-fork, it says something about running vim in the foreground; maybe I
} read too much into this. It does seem that -gf and -g give the same
} results. Perhaps the question of focus is not related to forking, as I
} thought it was.
The problem is that they give the same results. They shouldn't. By
default, GUI vim should background itself (i.e. fork), but the -f flag
suppresses that behavior.
} If I run vim in the background, with
} % /Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -g &
} then the Terminal is ready for new commands, and Vim comes into focus,
} which is what I usually want. If I do not run it in the background,
But you shouldn't need the &, it should Just Do It. This is the expected
behavior withou the -f flag.
} % /Applications/vim/Vim.app/Contents/MacOS/Vim -g
} then the terminal waits for Vim to finish. Is this different from not
} forking? More to the point: is there a problem? For example, I have
} not tried calling Vim from a mail program or anything that expects Vim
} to finish before doing more work.
This is exactly not forking. This is the expected behavior with the -f
} --Benji Fisher
- In the new binary, if I set the font to be Monaco (regular) at 12pt,
the display looks rather different from my terminal window, which also
has the font set to be Monaco (regular) at 12pt. The fonts in the
terminal window are less ugly and a bit thicker, making them easier to
read. What accounts for the difference in the two displays, and is it
possible to get the displayed fonts in vim to match the appearance of
those same fonts in the Terminal?
>> I have just uploaded a nre version of vim for OS X 10.2 (Jaguar)--
J. McKenzie Alexander
Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE
- Jason Alexander wrote:
> In the new binary, if I set the font to be Monaco (regular) at 12pt, theThis is probably because Vim uses the older Quicktime rendering
> display looks rather different from my terminal window, which also has
> the font set to be Monaco (regular) at 12pt. The fonts in the terminal
> window are less ugly and a bit thicker, making them easier to read.
> What accounts for the difference in the two displays, and is it possible
> to get the displayed fonts in vim to match the appearance of those same
> fonts in the Terminal?
instead of Quartz. Peter Cucka is working on enabling Quartz in Vim.