Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Joey Hess wrote: Keith G. Murphy wrote: The problem I see in 5.3 is less subtle. It will mess up this: $whatever =~ /thingiem/; Thinks the 'm/' is the beginning of a match and colorizes it, messing up subsequent lines as well! Doesn't happen here. Package: vim Version: 5.6.012-1 That's fine, but the one currently available in frozen and unstable (5.6.070) screws up a lot of stuff. Is there a package anywhere for this?
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Steve Lamb wrote: Wednesday, May 24, 2000, 1:27:53 PM, Keith wrote: One downside of vim that I just remembered, be careful the need for slamming the ESC key. Windows likes to think it means shut this window NOW! and if you have the confirmation turned off you lose messages in your Windows email client. Normally I don't wack the ESC key unless I am doing code. See above. ;) ?? Must be program-dependent. Haven't had Windows do this. Typically, I'm using vim within a Windows telnet client. Telnet clients are exceptions, really. Pretty much everything /except/ ALT keys (and even then...) are passed through unmolested. However the defailt behavior of esc on base windows productivity apps is close the window. Try it on others. :) Interesting. Not true with anything Netscape, not true with Microsoft Word or IE. However, it is true with the new message window in Outlook. Traditionally escape is a shortcut for cancelling a dialog box (or a menu). I really think the Outlook window thing violates Microsoft's own standards, since the window is not a modal dialog returning a status back to the main window code (i.e., you can still do stuff in the main Outlook window independently). But look how it has a 'save and close' button. Is this thing a dialog or not?! There actually were strict, documented interface standards that were pretty much followed, back in the Win 3.1 days. :-/
Re[3]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Hi,
The worst case that I have seen in vim, is the multiline regexp
with quotes in it. And it is even worse if I only want to match
the beginning quote. See example below:
$hello =~ s{
\hello world
}{
hello
}gex;
Anyone have a solution for this? This really prevents me using
this nice perl feature.
Regards,
Shao.
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 6:57:22 AM, Keith wrote:
This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's
Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As
some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor
has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting?
Vim. I've not seen a problem with its highlighting that didn't also
improve the readability of my code when I got in the habit of getting it to
colorize right. The /only/ perl construct I know of that doesn't work is
something like this:
if ($foo =~ /bar\/blam/){
}
Vim would see the \/, see a / and mess up the colorization right there.
However, this fixes it:
if ($foo =~ m/bar\/blam/){
}
Adding the m works fine. To me, explicitly stating a match is no big deal
for me. If course, I also use parens like a zealot but bouncing on the % key
is so much fun.
foreach $file (sort(keys(%files))){
}
:)
One downside of vim that I just remembered, be careful the need for
slamming the ESC key. Windows likes to think it means shut this window NOW!
and if you have the confirmation turned off you lose messages in your Windows
email client. Normally I don't wack the ESC key unless I am doing code. See
above. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
--
Shao Zhang - Running Debian 2.1 ___ _ _
Department of Communications/ __| |_ __ _ ___ |_ / |_ __ _ _ _ __ _
University of New South Wales \__ \ ' \/ _` / _ \ / /| ' \/ _` | ' \/ _` |
Sydney, Australia |___/_||_\__,_\___/ /___|_||_\__,_|_||_\__, |
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |___/
_
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Shao Zhang hat gesagt: // Shao Zhang wrote:
The worst case that I have seen in vim, is the multiline regexp
with quotes in it. And it is even worse if I only want to match
the beginning quote. See example below:
$hello =~ s{
\hello world
}{
hello
}gex;
Anyone have a solution for this? This really prevents me using
this nice perl feature.
Uhhm, well, this indeed is a big problem even on my Vim. Further
investigation needed...
bye
--
____
Frank Barknecht __ __ trip\ \ / /wire __
/ __// __ /__/ __// // __ \ \/ / __ \\ ___\
/ / / / / / / // // /\ \\ ___\\ \
/_/ /_/ /_/ /_//_// / \ \\_\\_\
/_/\_\
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Frank Barknecht hat gesagt: // Frank Barknecht wrote:
Shao Zhang hat gesagt: // Shao Zhang wrote:
The worst case that I have seen in vim, is the multiline regexp
with quotes in it. And it is even worse if I only want to match
the beginning quote. See example below:
$hello =~ s{
\hello world
}{
hello
}gex;
Anyone have a solution for this? This really prevents me using
this nice perl feature.
Uhhm, well, this indeed is a big problem even on my Vim. Further
investigation needed...
OK, investigation done! The problem Vim syntax has with the above code lies
in the syntax file /usr/share/vim/vim56/syntax/perl.vim
(Maybe there is a newer one.)
It just looks for s///, s### and s[][] like the following excerpt shows:
Last Change: 1999 Dec 27
[...]
Substitutions
caters for s///, s### and s[][]
perlMatch is the first part, perlSubstitution is the substitution part
syn region perlSubstitution matchgroup=perlMatchStartEnd start=+/+
end=+/[xosmigecd]*+ contained [EMAIL PROTECTED]
syn region perlSubstitution matchgroup=perlMatchStartEnd start=+#+
end=+#[xosmige]*+ contained [EMAIL PROTECTED]
syn region perlSubstitution matchgroup=perlMatchStartEnd start=+\[+
end=+\][xosmige]*+ contained [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So if you rewrite the sample code to
$hello =~ s[
\hello world
][
hello
]gex;
it gets colorized correctly. Or one could change the syntax file to include
{} pairs in substitutions also.
bye
--
____
Frank Barknecht __ __ trip\ \ / /wire __
/ __// __ /__/ __// // __ \ \/ / __ \\ ___\
/ / / / / / / // // /\ \\ ___\\ \
/_/ /_/ /_/ /_//_// / \ \\_\\_\
/_/\_\
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Frank Barknecht wrote: [cut] Hey, no problem here with highlighting that code snippet using VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled Feb 10 2000 17:28:27) (official wichert debian package) Hey, where can I get that? The one from frozen (vim-perl 5.6.070-1, vim compiled May 1), gets backspace and other keystrokes all screwed up, on any telnet client I care to use. I mean, even when I just do a ':q' I get a 'c' in front of my command prompt! Also, does not do perl syntax highlighting, that I can see. WTF is up with that? Back to 5.3. This is unusable for me. [apt-get remove vim-perl, fix sources.list, apt-get install vim-perl, time passes...] Ahhh, relief, 5.3 still works for me...
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Steve Lamb wrote:
[cut]
The /only/ perl construct I know of that doesn't work is
something like this:
if ($foo =~ /bar\/blam/){
}
The problem I see in 5.3 is less subtle.
It will mess up this:
$whatever =~ /thingiem/;
Thinks the 'm/' is the beginning of a match and colorizes it, messing up
subsequent lines as well!
Vim would see the \/, see a / and mess up the colorization right there.
However, this fixes it:
if ($foo =~ m/bar\/blam/){
}
Adding the m works fine. To me, explicitly stating a match is no big deal
for me.
Hmmm, that works for my problem as well. OK, vim (5.3) still rules for
now.
[cut]
One downside of vim that I just remembered, be careful the need for
slamming the ESC key. Windows likes to think it means shut this window NOW!
and if you have the confirmation turned off you lose messages in your Windows
email client. Normally I don't wack the ESC key unless I am doing code. See
above. ;)
?? Must be program-dependent. Haven't had Windows do this. Typically,
I'm using vim within a Windows telnet client.
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Sean wrote: Frank Mehnert wrote: I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? VIM Does VIM include color syntax highlighting on the console? I skimmed over the VIM-HOWTO, but I could only manage to get color syntax highlighting in gvim. MfG Viktor -- Viktor Rosenfeld E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] HertzSCHLAG:http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~rosenfel/hs/
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 2:23:00 PM, Viktor wrote: Does VIM include color syntax highlighting on the console? I skimmed over the VIM-HOWTO, but I could only manage to get color syntax highlighting in gvim. Yes, it does. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Wednesday, May 24, 2000, 1:27:53 PM, Keith wrote: One downside of vim that I just remembered, be careful the need for slamming the ESC key. Windows likes to think it means shut this window NOW! and if you have the confirmation turned off you lose messages in your Windows email client. Normally I don't wack the ESC key unless I am doing code. See above. ;) ?? Must be program-dependent. Haven't had Windows do this. Typically, I'm using vim within a Windows telnet client. Telnet clients are exceptions, really. Pretty much everything /except/ ALT keys (and even then...) are passed through unmolested. However the defailt behavior of esc on base windows productivity apps is close the window. Try it on others. :) -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Keith G. Murphy wrote: The problem I see in 5.3 is less subtle. It will mess up this: $whatever =~ /thingiem/; Thinks the 'm/' is the beginning of a match and colorizes it, messing up subsequent lines as well! Doesn't happen here. Package: vim Version: 5.6.012-1 -- see shy jo
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Use vim. It's hard to learn, but it is worse it. It's fast.
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On Tue, 23 May 2000, Armin Wegner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use vim. It's hard to learn, but it is worse it. Interesting typo ;) (I'm writing this as a non-native speaker, no offence intended) -- Philip Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On 23 May 2000, Philip Lehman wrote: On Tue, 23 May 2000, Armin Wegner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Use vim. It's hard to learn, but it is worse it. Interesting typo ;) (I'm writing this as a non-native speaker, no offence intended) -- Philip Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vim's one of the *best* editors, actually, IME. I use it all the time and it's replaced a word processor for me. I just print the files, piped through pr, for ordinary stuff; for anything fancy I use latex. And yes, it gives you syntax highlighting as well. Anthony -- Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian 2.1 (Windows-free zone) Book Reviews: http://www.pentelikon.freeserve.co.uk/bookreviews/ Skeptical articles: http://www.freethinker/uklinux.net/ To be forced by desire into any unwarrantable belief is a calamity. I.A. Richards
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Richard Klinda wrote: Hoi Frank, ALL! Frank I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is Frank syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a Frank small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? fte, vim, jed (emacs ;-)) This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting?
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
I may get flamed for this lol, but i've always used mcedit for perl stuff, pretty perl colour highlighting :) Peter. Keith G. Murphy wrote: Richard Klinda wrote: Hoi Frank, ALL! Frank I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is Frank syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a Frank small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? fte, vim, jed (emacs ;-)) This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting? -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea. *** *Peter GoodEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Pete's Internet Services Sales: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *http://www.petesinternet.net Phone: 0401 283 482* *Morayfield QLD Australia * ***
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
on 5/23/00 9:57 AM, Keith G. Murphy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting? (X)Emacs with CPerl mode. john. -- [ John S Jacobs Anderson ]--URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Genehack: Not your daddy's weblog ]--URL:http://genehack.org
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On 05/23/00, John S Jacobs Anderson addressed Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?: on 5/23/00 9:57 AM, Keith G. Murphy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting? (X)Emacs with CPerl mode. Even that's not, hmmm, what it should be. Cases that come to mind are certain regular expressions and here documents. Unless I've been using a different Perl mode in Emacs. Jesse -- Jesse Jacobsen, Pastor[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grace Lutheran Church (ELS) http://members.home.net/jmjacobsen1/glc/ Madison, WisconsinGnuPG public key ID: 2E3EBF13
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
How about fte (fte-console or fte under x)?? Ron Rademaker On Tue, 23 May 2000, Jesse Jacobsen wrote: On 05/23/00, John S Jacobs Anderson addressed Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?: on 5/23/00 9:57 AM, Keith G. Murphy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting? (X)Emacs with CPerl mode. Even that's not, hmmm, what it should be. Cases that come to mind are certain regular expressions and here documents. Unless I've been using a different Perl mode in Emacs. Jesse -- Jesse Jacobsen, Pastor[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Grace Lutheran Church (ELS) http://members.home.net/jmjacobsen1/glc/ Madison, WisconsinGnuPG public key ID: 2E3EBF13 -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 09:39:16AM -0500, Jesse Jacobsen wrote: On 05/23/00, John S Jacobs Anderson addressed Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?: on 5/23/00 9:57 AM, Keith G. Murphy at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting? (X)Emacs with CPerl mode. Even that's not, hmmm, what it should be. Cases that come to mind are certain regular expressions and here documents. Unless I've been using a different Perl mode in Emacs. It's possible. There's perl-mode and there's cperl-mode. I prefer that latter, although the highlighting is not perfect. -Michael -- Michael Stenner Office Phone: 919-660-2513 Duke University, Dept. of Physics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Box 90305, Durham N.C. 27708-0305
Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 6:57:22 AM, Keith wrote:
This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's
Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As
some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor
has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting?
Vim. I've not seen a problem with its highlighting that didn't also
improve the readability of my code when I got in the habit of getting it to
colorize right. The /only/ perl construct I know of that doesn't work is
something like this:
if ($foo =~ /bar\/blam/){
}
Vim would see the \/, see a / and mess up the colorization right there.
However, this fixes it:
if ($foo =~ m/bar\/blam/){
}
Adding the m works fine. To me, explicitly stating a match is no big deal
for me. If course, I also use parens like a zealot but bouncing on the % key
is so much fun.
foreach $file (sort(keys(%files))){
}
:)
One downside of vim that I just remembered, be careful the need for
slamming the ESC key. Windows likes to think it means shut this window NOW!
and if you have the confirmation turned off you lose messages in your Windows
email client. Normally I don't wack the ESC key unless I am doing code. See
above. ;)
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-
Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 7:39:16 AM, Jesse wrote: (X)Emacs with CPerl mode. Even that's not, hmmm, what it should be. Cases that come to mind are certain regular expressions and here documents. Unless I've been using a different Perl mode in Emacs. Not to mention I fail to see how Emacs got into the discussion of Simple Text Editor... Lisp interpreters with dillusions of OShood doesn't meet any of those three words. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Text editor with good Perl syntax highlighting (was Re: Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
on 5/23/00 11:28 AM, Steve Lamb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to mention I fail to see how Emacs got into the discussion of Simple Text Editor... Lisp interpreters with dillusions of OShood doesn't meet any of those three words. Go back and read the text you snipped. The question got changed to text editor with best Perl syntax highlighting, without a concomitant change in subject line. (X)Emacs certainly qualifies, despite it's editing functions being only a subset of it's full functionality. That said, could we pretty please with sugared bits on it not have this flame fest again? john. -- [ John S Jacobs Anderson ]--URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Genehack: Not your daddy's weblog ]--URL:http://genehack.org
Perl syntax highlighting in (X)Emacs (was Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
(X)Emacs with CPerl mode. Even that's not, hmmm, what it should be. Cases that come to mind are certain regular expressions and here documents. Unless I've been using a different Perl mode in Emacs. I haven't noticed any issues, but I don't make huge usage of here documents, and I tend towards non-standard bracketing for regexps, which means I do explict 'm's for matching. Those two factors might explain why I think it's satisfactory. OTOH, IIRC, there is a setting for how 'robust' the syntax parser tries to be; it's a time/speed tradeoff. I _think_ the default may be less than completely stringent. If you're really interested, M-x customize RET cperl-mode should tell all, at least in XEmacs. john. -- [ John S Jacobs Anderson ]--URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Genehack: Not your daddy's weblog ]--URL:http://genehack.org
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Steve Lamb hat gesagt: // Steve Lamb wrote:
Vim. I've not seen a problem with its highlighting that didn't also
improve the readability of my code when I got in the habit of getting it to
colorize right. The /only/ perl construct I know of that doesn't work is
something like this:
if ($foo =~ /bar\/blam/){
}
Vim would see the \/, see a / and mess up the colorization right there.
However, this fixes it:
if ($foo =~ m/bar\/blam/){
}
Hey, no problem here with highlighting that code snippet using
VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled Feb 10 2000 17:28:27)
(official wichert debian package)
Regardless if you set or omit the m Vim colorizes this fine. Even some
old syntax bugs with here docs have been fixed for some time now. So I
would really recommend VIM for perl, too.
bye
--
____
Frank Barknecht __ __ trip\ \ / /wire __
/ __// __ /__/ __// // __ \ \/ / __ \\ ___\
/ / / / / / / // // /\ \\ ___\\ \
/_/ /_/ /_/ /_//_// / \ \\_\\_\
/_/\_\
Re: Text editor with good Perl syntax highlighting (was Re: Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 8:41:46 AM, John wrote: Go back and read the text you snipped. The question got changed to text editor with best Perl syntax highlighting, without a concomitant change in subject line. (X)Emacs certainly qualifies, despite it's editing functions being only a subset of it's full functionality. Right, because were are still on simple editor. Again, I fail to see how Emacs qualifies since it isn't simple nor is it a text editor. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 10:21:36 AM, Frank wrote: Hey, no problem here with highlighting that code snippet using VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled Feb 10 2000 17:28:27) (official wichert debian package) Hmmm. I guess I'm just set in my ways because... work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/www/webmaster/usr/websupport/bin/quota} vim -h VIM - Vi IMproved 5.0 (1998 Feb 19, compiled Mar 12 1998 14:23:51) home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~} vim -h VIM - Vi IMproved 5.6 (2000 Jan 16, compiled May 1 2000 16:14:28) Thanks for pointing out my omission. :) -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Text editor with good Perl syntax highlighting (was Re: Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
on 5/23/00 1:37 PM, Steve Lamb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right, because were are still on simple editor. Again, I fail to see how Emacs qualifies since it isn't simple nor is it a text editor. (Please note that I changed the subject line a couple messages back, to remove the 'simple'.) Have you perhaps never used emacs? Saying emacs isn't a text editor is like saying that a Leatherman isn't a pocket knife -- it may be literally true, but is extremely misleading in fact. john. -- [ John S Jacobs Anderson ]--URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Genehack: Not your daddy's weblog ]--URL:http://genehack.org
Re[2]: Text editor with good Perl syntax highlighting (was Re: Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 10:46:21 AM, John wrote: Have you perhaps never used emacs? I have. Saying emacs isn't a text editor is like saying that a Leatherman isn't a pocket knife -- it may be literally true, but is extremely misleading in fact. Hey, don't tell me. Tell all the Emacs people who keep telling me it isn't a text editor. I've been told it is: A lisp interpreter A workspace environment A religion Not once have they told me it was a text editor. Got a beef, convert them. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Re[2]: Text editor with good Perl syntax highlighting (was Re: Re[2]: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?)
on 5/23/00 1:49 PM, Steve Lamb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tuesday, May 23, 2000, 10:46:21 AM, John wrote: Saying emacs isn't a text editor is like saying that a Leatherman isn't a pocket knife -- it may be literally true, but is extremely misleading in fact. Hey, don't tell me. Tell all the Emacs people who keep telling me it isn't a text editor. My final word on the subject: I haven't seen anybody other than you say that Emacs isn't a text editor. I have seen many people say it isn't _just_ a text editor (or words to that effect). Those two statements are _not_ equivalent. john. -- [ John S Jacobs Anderson ]--URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Genehack: Not your daddy's weblog ]--URL:http://genehack.org
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Steve Lamb wrote: Not to mention I fail to see how Emacs got into the discussion of Simple Text Editor... Lisp interpreters with dillusions of OShood doesn't meet any of those three words. Fox X I would use Nedit. Very easy to use and great highlighting. Actually, this is the only one I have found that does php+html nicely. Check out http://www.nedit.org/ for the latest version (some nice improvements over the one in potato) and extra highlight pattern files. /Mats
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Keith G. Murphy wrote:
This leads to a question I've been interested in. I've noticed vim's
Perl syntax highlighting to be, hmmm, not always what it should be. (As
some have said, only perl can parse Perl). Any opinions on which editor
has the *best* Perl syntax highlighting?
IMHO, vim. I haven't used emacs for perl work in a while, and it was
pretty good as well, though I recall somewhat slow, but I've found that vim's
actually makes my syntax errors stand out before I even run perl, since it
goes an extra mile to highlight more odd little corners of perl syntax.
BTW, jed used to have decent syntax highlighting for perl (not as good
as emacs), but it has gone horribly hownhill in the last few months. I
actually switched to vim expressly to get good perl syntax highlighting.
What cn I say, VIM gets my .sig right. :-)
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -nietianmsurwdkgohvf_l_pjbxcyzq --. --- - .--. . .-. .-..
y/-. //cd;for$^(split){for$b(1..80){$_=int($b/27).$b/9%3 .$b/3%3 .$b# by JH
%3;/[12]0/||do{y/120/.-/d;$^eq$_print substr$^I,$c,1;$c++}}$c=0} # and RC
Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Hi, I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? Frank -- Frank Mehnert ## Dept. of Computer Science, Dresden University of Technology, Germany ## ## E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/~fm3 ##
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Frank Mehnert wrote: I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? VIM
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Frank Mehnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? jed? -- Philip Lehman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Monday, May 22, 2000, 8:36:38 AM, Frank wrote: I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? I'd highly recommend vim. I was die-hard set against any vi or vi clone and very much set in my joe ways. I had used joes since my very first entrance into unix when Netcom was still around and sold shell account far cheaper than they did PPP accounts. What, '90? Anyway, early last year I stared in on my new job which included a large increase in perl coding. I came to the conclusion that the time I was losing by not having syntax highlighting was going to be greater than the short term loss of speed I'd have from my fingers being tied up in a different editor. I looked at jed but I wasn't pleased with the idea that every customization had to be programmed and there was little in the way of real documentation of slang to help people with even the most basic of changes. Emacs ain't small, it was right out. That left me looking at vim with the vi keys and cringing in fear. A year later my speed on vim is about on par with my speed in joe. The only thing I miss from joe is ESC-N and ESC-L for quick spell checking. Vim worked well for me because it has a /very nice/ help system (:help [keyword]) that is hyperlinked to hell and back. It comes with a quick vi/vim tutorial that helped me learn the keys associated with the functions I was used to working with in joe. To be honest, the first 2-3 weeks I was slower than one could imagine. The next 2-3 weeks I picked up speed as I learned things that helped me perform operations that were 2nd nature under joe. After about 3 months I was zipping along at a comfortable pace. So /if/ syntax highlighting is that important to you, take a good look at vim. Realize that it'll take a good 2-3 months to get any decent speed compared to how fast you're most likely in joe if you've used it as extensively as I had. However, the first time you use % to find a misplaced brace, paren or curley bracket will munch a lot of that time away. When you get comfortable with vi even if the overall typing/edit speed is lower, the niceties it packs in for coding will balance it out. BTW, I still dislike vi with a passion, prefer nvi if I /need/ to mess with stock vi and still highly recommend joe to any unix newbie. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. ---+-
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
Hoi Frank, ALL! Frank I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is Frank syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a Frank small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? fte, vim, jed (emacs ;-)) -- ignotus Never make any mistaeks. -- Anonymous, in a mail discussion about to a kernel bug report
Re: Simple Text Editor with Synatx highlighting?
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 08:59:56PM +0200, Richard Klinda wrote: Hoi Frank, ALL! Frank I'm using joe for many purposes. The only feature I miss is Frank syntax highlighting in C. Are there any hints for such a Frank small and fast editor in Debian with that feature built in? fte, vim, jed (emacs ;-)) I'll confirm fte-console or xfte as simple and nice. The mouse support on the console version is pretty nifty aswell as the menu's. Ben -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'
