Just a sample of the Echomail archive
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
|  Message 896  |
|  Nick Boel to Maurice Kinal  |
|  Re: the solution would be to eliminate a  |
|  06 Dec 24 18:11:19  |
 TZUTC: -0600 MSGID: 239.tuxpower@1:154/700 2bb8c996 REPLY: 1:153/7001 67527061 PID: Synchronet 3.20a-Linux master/6e166f09d Dec 02 202 GCC 14.2.1 TID: SBBSecho 3.23-Linux master/6e166f09d Dec 02 2024 13:11 GCC 14.2.1 BBSID: PHARCYDE CHRS: ASCII 1 NOTE: slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux) Hello Maurice, On Thu, Dec 05 2024 21:32:49 -0600, you wrote .. > > For example, in nano, try "set fill 69" in conjunction with "set > > justifytrim" which removes the whitespace at the end of the lines. > > For example, in nano, try "set fill 69" in conjunction with "set > > justifytrim" which removes the whitespace at the end of the lines. > Even though they look the same they aren't. Can you tell which is which? Sure. The first one you trimmed the blanks at the end, and the second one they're there. Was the second one with fold or just "set trimblanks" disabled? Maybe the difference is that fold does (or doesn't) include the blanks in it's count, whereas nano does (or doesn't) if you have them enabled? Which one do you think is doing it incorrectly? > BTW I can't find "set justifytrim" so instead I enabled "set trimblanks" which looks to be the same end result. Ah, seems the .nanorc in my home directory is quite a bit outdated. You are correct, they've removed 'justifytrim' at some point. :) > |
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]