On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 12:47:23 +0200, Arthur Fichtl wrote: > >... a well-behaved >editor should leave the file position unchanged. > >I disagree, although having an option would be more user friendly, as >would optional first and last operands on FIND. > (Why doesn't your "Reply" facility distinguish quoted text!? I suppose this is YA matter of personal preference.)
>Additionally to Pauls' remark let me point to the powerful Macro Facility of >ISPF EDIT. >You can easliy -if you want- create a personal, let's say XFIND, command, that >remembers the cursor position and stays on the last found line in case no >further hits are found. > ??? Why a macro? In my experience the native behavior of ISPF EDIT is to leave the cursor position unchanged when no further hit is found. (And I prefer "unchanged" over "last found line" for the cases when the cursor was most recently positioned by other than a FIND command.) On Sat, 2 Aug 2014 07:49:52 -0400, John Gilmore wrote: > >The best we can hope for is a set of primitives, building blocks, that >is complete in the sense that they can be used together to build much >more complex, disparate facilities. They and their completeness; not >lamentation about the notional inadequacies of others' designs, should >be the focus of our attention. > I had become slightly familiar with ISPF EDIT before I encountered XEDIT. Then I found it particularly irritating that XEDIT always scrolls the view to position the located target on a fixed screen line (even though that can be configured). I wrote a set of macros to emulate the ISPF behavior. Looking back, it was a mistake -- the ROI never offset the resource used. Worse yet, development by the vendor has modified the primitives so my macros no longer work as designed. The primitives were inadequate. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
