From Newsgroup: comp.editors

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set compatible' in the vimrc file.

I then select some text using 'v' and delete it using x. However, this
also copies the text (yanks it). Same thing happens when I try to delete
a few lines with 10dd or 10dw.

Is this normal behavior? If yes, is there a way to not to yank the text
I'm deleting?

Is this perhaps Vim behavior? The Vi bundled with BusyBox that runs on
my router also yanks text it deletes.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

swapjim <swapjim@example.org> wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set compatible' in the vimrc file.

I then select some text using 'v' and delete it using x. However, this
also copies the text (yanks it). Same thing happens when I try to delete
a few lines with 10dd or 10dw.

Is this normal behavior? If yes, is there a way to not to yank the text
I'm deleting?

Is this perhaps Vim behavior? The Vi bundled with BusyBox that runs on
my router also yanks text it deletes.

It's totally normal and desired by most users, I guess.

Use "_dd and similar to not put the deleted text in a register.
See :h "_
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 2026-02-16 22:29, swapjim wrote:

[...]

I then select some text using 'v' and delete it using x. However, this
also copies the text (yanks it). Same thing happens when I try to delete
a few lines with 10dd or 10dw.

Is this normal behavior?

This is Vi standard behavior.

If yes, is there a way to not to yank the text I'm deleting?

There's the elsethread mentioned "black hole register" (but I'm not
sure that was existing in classical Vi that you wrote are intending
to learn).

[...]

I suppose you want the text not to enter the yank-buffer because you
want to recover (paste) a previously yanked (or deleted) text? - For
that you have also other means to keep and access former stored text.

You can store deleted or yanked text in a named register (a-z) with
the double quotes indicator; instead of, say,

dw you could "a dw (the space is just for readability here!)
yy you could "b yy etc. to enter text contents into a and b

Then you'd paste the stored data for example with "a p or "b P
etc. You can also *accumulate* deleted or yanked text in a register
if you use a capital alpha character, as in "A dw or "B yy etc.

For deleted text there's also the implicit numbered registers "1 "2
"3 etc. where you can access the last, the one before the last, etc.
deleted text and paste it as "2 p or "3 P (for example).

Janis

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 2026-02-16 22:43, Rene Kita wrote:

swapjim <swapjim@example.org> wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set
compatible' in the vimrc file.

Use "_dd and similar to not put the deleted text in a register.
See :h "_

Do you know whether that register was existing in classical Vi ?
(I don't think so but, frankly, I don't recall and I'm curious.)

Janis

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-16 22:43, Rene Kita wrote:

swapjim <swapjim@example.org> wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set
compatible' in the vimrc file.

Use "_dd and similar to not put the deleted text in a register.
See :h "_

Do you know whether that register was existing in classical Vi ?
(I don't think so but, frankly, I don't recall and I'm curious.)

Janis

AFAIK it's a vim extension - but it works in vim with 'set compatible'.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 2026-02-16 17:28, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

Use "_dd and similar to not put the deleted text in a register.
See :h "_

Do you know whether that register was existing in classical Vi ?
(I don't think so but, frankly, I don't recall and I'm curious.)

The "a .. "z and "1 .. "9 buffers are part of historical `ex` and `vi`, see SUS
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/ buffer definition.

I used to work on Mortice Kern Systems maintaining their DOS `vi` while we were
balloting POSIX.2. The named buffers were part of the historical `vi` and the MKS independent clone.

As for the OP, deleting / changing always included a yank into the numeric buffers. That is historical behaviour and documented in SUS.
--
Anthony C Howe
achowe@snert.com BarricadeMX & Milters http://nanozen.snert.com/ https://github.com/SirWumpus
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

In article <10n1ham$1mgl9$1@dont-email.me>,
Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> wrote:

On 2026-02-16 17:28, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

Use "_dd and similar to not put the deleted text in a register.
See :h "_

Do you know whether that register was existing in classical Vi ?
(I don't think so but, frankly, I don't recall and I'm curious.)

The "a .. "z and "1 .. "9 buffers are part of historical `ex` and `vi`,
see SUS https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/ buffer
definition.

But that's not Janis's question. The question is whether or not classical
vi has the "_" (black hole) register. And the answer to that is No.

I used to work on Mortice Kern Systems maintaining their DOS `vi` while we >were balloting POSIX.2. The named buffers were part of the historical `vi` >and the MKS independent clone.

Right. But since we are in this general area and not to change the subject
but to change the subject, let me add that I have never been able to figure
out the logic of the numbered buffers. I've never seen a good explanation
of why they are there and how you might use them to your benefit. And
every time I've tried to use them, things are not where I expect them to
be. That is, when I do the "registers" command (in Vim), the contents of
the numeric buffers always seems random/unpredictable to me.

As for the OP, deleting / changing always included a yank into the numeric >buffers. That is historical behavior and documented in SUS.

Yeah, but which one - and for how long?

Anyway, it is not clear what OP is actually concerned about. Why should
one care about whether or not yanking puts text into the (unnamed) buffer
or not? Is it an efficiency concern (in which case, it is almost certainly
an unnecessary concern) or is about wiping out something that you wish to
keep? (If the later, then you should, as detailed upthread, store it into
some other register. That's what I do; if I think I may later need what I am yanking or deleting, then I yank/delete it into a named register [*]).

[*] Which, of course, also puts it into the unnamed register.
--
A racist, a Nazi, and a Klansman walk into a bar...

Bartender says, "What will it be, Mr. Trump?"

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 2026-02-17 15:08, Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <10n1ham$1mgl9$1@dont-email.me>,
Anthony Howe <achowe@snert.com> wrote:

[...]

Right. But since we are in this general area and not to change the subject but to change the subject, let me add that I have never been able to figure out the logic of the numbered buffers. I've never seen a good explanation
of why they are there and how you might use them to your benefit. And
every time I've tried to use them, things are not where I expect them to
be. That is, when I do the "registers" command (in Vim), the contents of
the numeric buffers always seems random/unpredictable to me.

Well, while for a long time I shared that feeling and typically also
abstain from using the numbered buffers[*] its quite "predictable" -
but I'm aware you might mean that last sentence more figuratively.

I think there's one important difference to the named buffers to know; "yanking" will *not* put that text into the _numbered_ buffers, while
a deleted text will go there.[**] And then it gets simple; "1 was the
last deleted text, "2 the one before, etc., and whenever a new text
will be deleted the numbered registers stack contents will get shifted.

The inherent problem is that the register numbers change with every
new delete and you'd have to keep that in mind unnecessarily, so [*].
You can of course (in Vim) also interrogate the registers in case you accidentally deleted a text some time before and want that recovered,
by :reg

Janis

[*] In practice I also use mainly named registers which are also more
powerful and the register name can be chosen to be a mnemonic letter.

[**] This is from my ad hoc tests, but note that the vim help says for
numbered registers:
"Vim fills these registers with text from yank and delete commands."
which is disturbing.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 16/02/2026 21:29, swapjim wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set >compatible' in the vimrc file.

I then select some text using 'v' and delete it using x. However, this
also copies the text (yanks it). Same thing happens when I try to delete
a few lines with 10dd or 10dw.

Is this normal behavior? If yes, is there a way to not to yank the text
I'm deleting?

Is this perhaps Vim behavior? The Vi bundled with BusyBox that runs on
my router also yanks text it deletes.

If it's to avoid yanking data you're putting over, shift-P should do the
trick.
--
--
A PICKER OF UNCONSIDERED TRIFLES
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

On 17/02/2026 22:42, Jason H wrote:

On 16/02/2026 21:29, swapjim wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set >>compatible' in the vimrc file.

I then select some text using 'v' and delete it using x. However, this >>also copies the text (yanks it). Same thing happens when I try to delete
a few lines with 10dd or 10dw.

Is this normal behavior? If yes, is there a way to not to yank the text >>I'm deleting?

Is this perhaps Vim behavior? The Vi bundled with BusyBox that runs on
my router also yanks text it deletes.

If it's to avoid yanking data you're putting over, shift-P should do the
trick.

Apologies... I suspect that may not work with Vi from Caveman days.
--
--
A PICKER OF UNCONSIDERED TRIFLES
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.editors

swapjim wrote:

I'm using GVim 9.1 on Windows to learn traditional Vi by setting 'set compatible' in the vimrc file.

I then select some text using 'v' and ...

Others have addressed your actual question, but I feel I should point
out that there was no 'v' command in traditional vi.

I assume "set compatible" in vim only changes vim's behaviour where
it conflicts with traditional/POSIX vi but non-conflicting extensions
are still available.

Someone else gave a link to the online POSIX vi man page; you could
use that reference as a way to identify what things that still work
in vim with "set compatible" are non-standard.
--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2