Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I have two frames open right now: one 80x70, the other around 180x70 >> (characters, not pixels). One isn't split at all; the other is split >> into four windows, horizontally and vertically. > > Then you're obviously not using the One True Emacs I am criticizing, > which is a console app.
No, the One True Emacs supports GUIs. It has since 1991. Take a look at <http://linux.softpedia.com/screenshots/Emacs_2.png>. >> emacs has continued doing its own thing, mostly because that thing is >> better. The CUA standards (there exists an emacs package if you >> really want them) are broken and lame--I and most other don't wish to >> cripple our text editor of choice. > > "CUA standards"? I'm sorry, I don't speak Botswanan. If you mean > Windows standards like for cut, copy, and paste, "broken and lame" is > obviously in the eye in the beholder, and something 97% of computer > users are used to is the defacto standard, so it's the other 3% that > are "broken and lame". ;) Popularity is no measure of goofness. > No, we're discussing ... oh, nevermind. It looks like there are > several utterly different pieces of software that have one thing in > common - the name "emacs". That is actually true. There's GNU emacs (the original and still the best). There's XEmacs (a fork of the same). Then there are a myriad of ancient emacsen, most particularly Gosling emacs. However, the only two which matter are GNU emacs and XEmacs. Both have supported a GUI for 16 years now. I don't have XEmacs installed, so I cannot tell you if it has the tutorial. I would be truly surprised if it didn't. >> Neither is right nor wrong; you're just used to one. The emacs keys are >> certainly more flexible and powerful, though. Some might consider them >> right for that reason. [snip] > This is also a change from your earlier position that they were, and I > quote, "broken and lame", assuming you mean the same stock Windoze > keybindings you meant with the cryptic term "CUA standards". Not really--they're broken and lame because they are less flexible and powerful. How 'bout you actually try using a modern emacs? It'll even support your chosen operating system. -- Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl> Better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish. And if he can't be bothered to learn to fish and starves to death, that's a good enough outcome for me. --Steve VanDevender, 1 May 2000 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
