[PATCH] Honour the $VISUAL environment variable

[pudinha]

> > I'm a bit confused by the patch intent and the above statement: do I
> > read a misplaced "not"? Did you perhaps mean that in your system
> > $EDITOR
> > *is* a visual editor? Probably my fault I'm not understanding :-)
>
> I was confused as well: Turns out in this context, a VISUAL editor is
> one that can assume the user is running in a terminal, so it can e.g.
> move to previous lines, unlike a non-visual (line) EDITOR which is
> limited to the current line, because output e.g. goes to a teletype
> (remote printer).

Here `EDITOR=ex`, which does not start a "graphical" curses interface.

> I still don’t really get it though: Why would anyone (today) set
> EDITOR to a line editor *and* then expect programs to use VISUAL over
> EDITOR?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not sure either. I think I had problems with `EDITOR=vi` years ago and
then looked up those variables and set $VISUAL. But might be the case
that I was just being a purist or blindly following standards and I
don't know anymore :)

One thing is certain though: I don't see `ex` being invoked very
often, so most commands I use do honour the $VISUAL setting (bash and
git for sure).

> I mean, strictly speaking, if pass were to use both VISUAL and EDITOR,
> it should check that it is running in a terminal, and only then, call
> VISUAL, otherwise call EDITOR. But I think the de facto standard today
> is for people to just set EDITOR to a “visual” editor, as teletypes
> are a thing of the past.

I think it depends on whether we want to support old terminals or just
the variables. I've seen it implemented like that in a few places, but
I've also seen others doing the terminal check.

My patch is just about the variables, as I didn't want to change them
just because of pass, or have a wrapper script in ~/bin/pass, like I
do now, setting `EDITOR=$VISUAL`.

-- 
Pudim