Re: ::scr Towards a better text editor

[Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:56:54AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Richard Clamp (richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > 
> > Again you're already muddling all the types of text into one.  Editing
> > mail messages != editing code 
> 
> Yeah, but at some point you hit reductio ad absurdum with this,
> you have a special program to edit mail, code, letters to your
> granny, fan fiction, etc. 

Yup, but what if you had one editor, which could load up custom
behaviours for each of those, and still be remarkably consistent in
all other respects.  That would be a splendid invention.

> > != editing structured data.
> 
> and editing XML or structured data is a different one, but
> we are probably not talking about it at the minute

It's text, and so I'd like to be able to edit it, with an editor.  Go
via TeX or DocBook if it makes things a little clearer as to where I'm
coming from.

> > > I use nano, a Gnu Pico clone, which other people thinks suck.
> > I think it's a fine tool for the job, when the job is composing
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not going to debate editor vs. editor here, its a dull conversation,
> bad simon for making this the first thread

True, and I should know better too, but it does get it done and out of
the way.  In future we'll be able to point back at the archives and
say "behold the wisdom of Greg", and "we did the editor thing already,
and no-one won, again"

-- 
Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>