Edit file on Windows, shows ^M on each line on Linux

Paul Seamons paul at seamons.com
Fri Apr 13 12:38:46 MDT 2007


> So, a one-line solution for vi(m), and a two page solution for Emacs.
> Sounds about right.

Lets see - emacs:

C-x RET c unix RET
C-x C-v RET

M-% C-q C-m RET RET !
C-x C-s

And now vi:

Well for the first two - Vi doesn't have a way to change visibly between the 
two formats to even make the ^M appear - so I guess that doesn't count.

:%s/ C-q C-m //
:w

So VI isn't a one liner - it is at least two - and that is negating the fact 
that if the file shows up in DOS mode there isn't an easy way to make the ^M 
show up.  There might be a way to do this in VI - I haven't been able to find 
it.

Well lets try another way of doing things.  Turns out we don't need to do 
search and replace in Vim or Emacs.

Emacs:

C-x C-f backup.pl
SPC C-_
C-x RET c unix RET
C-x C-s

And now vi:

:set ff=dos
:open backup.pl
:set ff=unix
:w  (vim lets us save a file even though we haven't made modifications - emacs 
doesn't)

Gee - I'm seeing a pattern here.  Both editors are cryptic.

So once again I have written a long document.

I guess that is the difference between emacs and vim users.  Vim users give 
you a cryptic one liner and hope you know what it is doing, emacs users give 
you a cryptic one liner, explain what the one liner does, and then expect 
that what they said makes sense. 

I'm hoping that this won't fall further into a session of "count the key 
strokes that it takes to do it in vim vs emacs because that proves my editor 
is culrz."  Any such argument is a shallow religious debate about whether it 
is better to be in insert mode or control mode.

Paul



More information about the PLUG mailing list