On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Paul Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gorka Guardiola) writes: > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 7:42 PM, David Leimbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> The only thing I'd miss in Acme vs emacs then, most likely, for > lisp-like > >> languages is paren-matching. > >> And I'd miss it dearly. > >> > >> > > > > Double click on the paren selects the area enclosed by the matching > paren. > > > > > > > > -- > > - curiosity sKilled the cat > > I don't know if posts to usenet (where I lurk this list) go through to > the mailing list, but I've found Acme's paren matching to be > sufficient. The bear is indentation, since to make it work out it's > necessary to use a fixed-width font (something I'd rather not do) and > adjust it by hand, which needs to happen more often and by greater > degrees than in a language like C. The chief issues being: > > (list (list 'a 'b 'c) > (list 1 2 3)) > ; ^ > ; These need to line up. > > ; These need to line up. > ; V > (let ((a 3) > (b 4)) > (+ a b)) > ; ^ > ; Should be two spaces or so. > > Yeah I guess I'm spoiled by the hotkey visual cues I get from Emacs when typing in code, that automatically show me the matching parens as I type. Perhaps I really don't *need* that. I'll try Plan 9 Port acme again for some Scheme Shell or something and see how it goes. (Emacs screws up Scheme Shell pretty badly, due to it's not accepting | characters in it's syntax definition, and as I said before, customizing emacs is not the same as me getting my work done) Dave
