::scr Towards a better text editor

[simon wistow]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:50:27PM +0100, Richard Clamp said:

> Explain how this could be better handled.  It's currently just a blind
> assertion, that's why I'm challenging it.

But you were the one who said a text editor shouldn't be used for coding *and*
emailing *and* whatever. /me is bemuddled now.

> By internally do you mean internally consistent?  You'd have to give
> me an example though.

As far as I was concerned there didn't seem to be any internal logic about how
stuff worked. It wasn't easy to do one thing and then infer how to do
something else from it. Or to puzzle out how to use a feature.


> Yes, though the points seem to be, "xemacs is puzzling when I first
> start it" and "X apps seem to use the mouse oddly".  I wholly agree
> with that.  If you're deriving a different point I'm curious.

I think that ... wait, wait, wait. Fuck this. I'm in danger of getting into
the very argument I didn't want to get into.

See below.

[SNIP THE REST]

> I don't I assure you.  I'm only using emacs in response to your
> assertions about it, same as I invoked the spirit of vim to correct
> your assertion about cursor motion in the vi family.

Ok, stop. The point of my original post was, essentially, 'what features would
you like in a text editor'?

I stated what *I* thought was wrong about Vi, Emacs and Nano. In later posts I
elaborated on what I would actually like. In passing you've mentioned some of
the features you wanted in a text editor.

Stop picking fights with me about text editors and which one is better. I
think they all suck. In fact I think all applications suck (c.f document
centric post) but that's beside the point. I just happen to use nano. But
that's my choice. If you wanted to edit your emails using edlin then that's
your choice. I just want to know why. And whether there's anything you'd
change about it.

Plus I'm in danger of losing ... :)







-- 
: nature notes for the apocalypse