Thien-Thi Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> As written, the definition misleads people into thinking that Emacs >> falls into the same category as VI or Notepad. > > emacs seeps into every nook and cranny, first explicitly changing > named bits locally, then meta-bits locally, then any bits outside of > itself anywhere, then any bits including itself,
I'm with you on all these... > then finally the perception of all those bits by its users, whether > or not any external change is actually involved. ...but you've lost me here. Are you saying that Emacs at some point becomes the lens through which we percieve every part of reality, including (and not limited to) Emacs itself? > people who don't understand this initially do so eventually, > although they may not understand their understanding. Will we at least know as soon enough we understand? > every motion achieves change (surprisingly :-). You've lost me again. Are you talking about Emacs development, developer health, that weird Japanese game, or the second law of thermodynamics? -- Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
