From 57daf35a76506de41dfaf94af78376717943957b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Ryder <tom@sanctum.geek.nz>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 22:58:25 +1200
Subject: Move exm(1df) test into EDITOR selection

Merely checking for vim(1) is a poor test; we specifically need to know
if the ex(1) implementation is Vim, so test it while making the EDITOR
decision.
---
 sh/profile.d/editor.sh | 17 +++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

(limited to 'sh')

diff --git a/sh/profile.d/editor.sh b/sh/profile.d/editor.sh
index 307879fe..debb93b6 100644
--- a/sh/profile.d/editor.sh
+++ b/sh/profile.d/editor.sh
@@ -3,12 +3,21 @@
 if command -v ed >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then
     EDITOR=ed
 
-# Failing that, if we have both vim(1) and exm(1df) in our $PATH, use the
-# latter to work around Vim's ex mode screen-clearing
-elif { command -v vim && command -v exm ; } >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then
+# Failing that, if the system's implementation of ex(1) looks like Vim and we
+# have exm(1df) in our $PATH, use the latter to work around Vim's ex mode
+# screen-clearing
+elif (
+    command -v ex >/dev/null 2>&1 || exit 1
+    command -v exm >/dev/null 2>&1 || exit 1
+    ver=$(ex --version 2>/dev/null | awk 'NR==1{print $1;exit}')
+    case $ver in
+        (VIM) exit 0 ;;
+        (*)   exit 1 ;;
+    esac
+) >/dev/null 2>&1 ; then
     EDITOR=exm
 
-# Otherwise, just call ex(1) directly
+# Otherwise, we can just call ex(1) directly
 else
     EDITOR=ex
 fi
-- 
cgit v1.2.3