🚀 go-pugleaf

To: ucdavis!ucbvax!comp-sys-sequent
Path: ic2020!csuf3b!gaudi!larry!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cica!iuvax!pur-ee!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!aeh
From: aeh@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dale Talcott)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm,comp.sys.sequent
Subject: Re: Losing editted messages with elm
Summary: failed search?
Message-ID: <10743@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 04:01:58 GMT
References: <8154@sequoia.UUCP>
Reply-To: aeh@j.cc.purdue.edu (Dale Talcott)
Followup-To: comp.mail.elm
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 16


In article <8154@sequoia.UUCP> dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes:
>We are on a Sequent S81, Dynix 3.0.12 running Elm at PL16 (current I believe),
>... they go into entry mode with vi ... Checking in the elm source, it 
>appears we are getting back a non-zero code from the attempt to invoke vi,
>yet obviously it WAS invoked...

Some versions of vi return a non-zero exit status if you ever search
for a pattern which isn't found.  In fact, the exit status is the
number of such failed searches (plus any real errors).  Which makes
the exit status from such vi's nearly useless.

It should be easy to check if this is your problem.  Fixing it without
sources, however...

Dale Talcott, Purdue University Computing Center
aeh@j.cc.purdue.edu, {purdue,pur-ee}!j.cc.purdue.edu!aeh, aeh@purccvm.bitnet