On Sun, 2003-10-19 at 19:43, Tom wrote: > [Sunday 19 October 2003 19:09] John Hasler: > > > > To start with, it should be graphical, so vim, emacs and the like > > > are no option to me... > > > > What do you mean by graphical? Emacs has menus, icons, cut&paste > > with the mouse, mouse control of the cursor, etc. What is it that > > people mean by a "graphical" editor? > > Well... Built with widgets? :-s > > Somehow, I expected this reply. It's more of a look-n-feel thing. I > don't mind console apps, but for some purposes, I like the "graphical" > approach better. It's not (only) about being able to control things > using the mouse etc. >
Its probably not what you are looking for, but on this note there is xemacs which is much more graphical, and there is also a build of xemacs based on gtk (don't know if 1 or 2) But if you are looking for an editor xemacs is probably an over shoot, since its intended to be more of a developement environment (some would claim a complete environment) then just an editor. vim has a more graphical interface called gvim. version 6 is based on gtk2 (or at list can be I belive it can also be compiled for gtk1), but from your description I don't think that thats what you are looking for either I'm afraid. It has more of a unixish fill then widowish. > I understand the point about Emacs being as "graphical" as anything else > in a certain way, but I can't believe *you* don't understand what I > meant with "graphical". :-) > > Greets, > Tom > > -- > "Was soll uns denn das ew'ge Schaffen! > Geschaffenes zu nichts hinwegzuraffen!" -- Micha Feigin [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]