Re: Model/view design for text editor
Change text from All Caps to All Lower Case or First Letter Caps with a 2 key keystroke combo? TF How do you do that? (Another feature I never knew of... ;-)) I use one text/rtf editor which provides a plethora of options that do allow manipulation of text in many ways. It is called keynote 1.5.8 and you can get it at the following address: http://keynote.prv.pl/ Why, thanks! (And it's been 1.5.9 since yesterday ;) You can send mail direct from the program and it is quite amazing being it is a free application :) KeyNote's editor is the standard Windows rich text control; I don't think I would have been able to write one from scratch. But the upcase/lowcase/Proper Case are entirely homegrown :) .marek jedlinski -- No ads, no nags freeware: http://keynote.prv.pl (KeyNote, PhoneDeck, KookieJar, Oubliette) So tell me, just how long have you had this feeling that no one is watching you? (Christopher Locke: Entropy Gradient Reversals) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Why, thanks! (And it's been 1.5.9 since yesterday ;) For those of us who already have 1.5.8 installed, do we have to uninstall and reinstall to get 1.5.9, or can we just install over top of 1.5.8? Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
RE:[Model/view design for text editor][28/12/2002-10:43 GMT]
I have tested several external editors, in the past. I believe the only editors which behave similarly as TB's (IMO, the best editor of all email programs) were: The Boxer and, from the same programmer, TKO (Technical Knock Out). I dont know how good they are in their 32bit incarnations but the old MSDOS versiones were extremely nice and similar, in many ways, to TB's editor. TB is a brilliant program much better than anything else I have tested. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Ø©Eªnº - þªT®iª - NØsT®ª] Las Palmas, Canary Islands [28/12/2002, 10:43 GMT] Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 [Original message, 28/12/2002, 9:03] Victor B. Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: VBG Anyone know of a good text editor like that? --- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Mike, On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 14:52:18 + GMT (28/12/02, 21:52 +0700 GMT), Mike Alexander wrote: I'm not sure if it's like that (because I'm too dumb to know what you mean be free style caret _ perhaps I should ask my bunny? g) LOL! No free carots with TB. g Free caret means that you just click the with the mouse to any position in the window, and that's where you continue typing. I once misspelled it as free claret, but that was after a night of French wine, and may have the same effect. ;-) -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. Der Tabellenerste kann jederzeit den Spitzenreiter schlagen. (Berti Vogts) Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, December 28, 2002, Victor B. Gonzalez wrote... I've downloaded tuns of text editors yesterday and came across an interesting free MDI which lets you free style and with a plethora of options (though not visibly, it's there). Anyway its called syn 2.0 ; http://syn.sourceforge.net/ Interestingly enough, I'm using the components similar to this to build my editor, I'm just seriously hacking the source code a bit to make it a totally free caret editor (unless they already did that) as it was limited to selecting past End of Line where as a free caret would allow past End of File. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393 B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73 iQA/AwUBPg3z5CuD6BT4/R9zEQLUGgCg1fRYBBvob9Bnhvtv/C7mrRcBTXUAoIMD AVb5CTYWbpnOsyX1q9f/q5l1 =VAWq -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Bruno, On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 00:38:48 -0500 GMT (28/12/02, 12:38 +0700 GMT), Bruno Fernandes wrote: I'd love a way to disable the free caret. As an added option, I don't see a problem with it. I have been using the free caret to the extent that I get annoyed with Word, but I see that other people would like the cursor . ;-) I'd love to be able to toggle my view between fixed-pitch and variable-pitch fonts (I rarely need to use the font for making columnar alignment) etc... I'd love that option too. While I only use a fixed-width font (Courier New) for emails in European languages, the fixed-width fonts for Thai are plain ugly. I would say this is a major drawback, if Rit ever want to sell TB here. My favourite Thai font is AngsanaUPC. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. BROT trocknet nicht so rasch aus, wenn man es stets in einem Eimer mit Wasser lagert. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Douglas, On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:38:12 +0100 GMT (29/12/02, 04:38 +0700 GMT), Douglas Hinds wrote: I'm no expert on text editors, so I'd best ask. Can other editors: Change text from All Caps to All Lower Case or First Letter Caps with a 2 key keystroke combo? How do you do that? (Another feature I never knew of... ;-)) -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. If you're born again, do you have two bellybuttons? Message reply created with The Bat! 1.62 Christmas Edition under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using an AMD Athlon K7 1.2GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
The main point everyone should take away is the idea of model/view supporting various behaviors in the editor. WIthout model/view distinctions, there can only be one (fixed) behavior. It may also be worth pointing out to Bat developers that this e-list should be regarded as a highly biased sample population. For each voice in favor of current features, there may be at least one other person (not on the e-list -- not in the sample population) who evaluated Bat! but decided against it because of that very feature. I was almost one of them and in fact still don't use Bat's klunky editor. It reminds me too much of a TTY terminal Regards. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello marek! On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 2:36:11 AM you wrote: In precisely the way other clients do. I'm not talking about brain-dead software like Outlook Express; I'm talking about *excellent* software such as Forte Agent. Sorry, Agent uses soft-wraps during composition and will only change that to hard-wraps during send. Luckily the developers knew the rouble behind this and decided to soft-wrap at the pre-defined lengths - regardless of the window size. Specifically, it inserts a newline character where the user didn't. So again, there is nothing to disttinguish. The program should simply respect what the user entered. If I want a paragraph break, I'll press Enter. If I don't, I don't. That's not quite the right way with e-mail, the standard is to have a LB/CR (hard-wrap) at around 72 characters; PGP and Agent, BTW, use exactly that as default. So, you cannot just make up a paragraph by one new line, you need two. Which has become standard even in business letters (instead if indenting the first line of a new paragraph). You do exactly that with TB, it recognises a new paragraph through a blank line. As would the recipient, since indenting the first line is not good enough for recognition on a monitor. The client can and should break lines at a predefined length when sending, and all modern email clients do so, although it isn't really necessary most of the time. 1) Nobody questioned that, to the contrary. 2) What Marck wrote was that the sender should *see* the message the way it will be sent (or even received ...). 3) How come I regularly get messages - mostly from OL/OE - which don't wrap at all, they show even lengthy posts in just one long line? Does it have to be the same in appearance? Yes. Try making up a table. Isn't it much more convenient if you can resize the window as you're typing, and have the text automatically conform to the new size of the window - and so can the recipient? No. Isn't it more convenient when, if you add or remove some text inside a paragraph, the paragraph stays, rather than being split into a bunch of uneven lines? You can achieve this with TB through Auto-Format, Auto-Wrap, Altl. TheBat insists on inserting linebreaks where I didn't enter them. Which it will do regardless of what you see, *as long as it conforms to breaking lines at certain lengths*. You now can see it, with your scheme you won't know how it looks upon sending. Initially, I thought it was a hitch of an early version that would eventually be ironed out - but now that it seems to be a well-entrenched feature, it's still wrong. It's a feature, yes. It's wrong, no. It doesn't fit your needs, maybe. Just because something doesn't works like you want it to be doesn't make it wrong. You know, I am now around three years on these lists using TB for about the same time. This editor discussion pops up every few weeks, one can always see when a new marketing wave has hit, because new users complain about it. Every single time I've found those complaining loudest became the most ardent converts. Like with religion. (the above is what TheBat did after I inserted it provides into a previously-typed paragraph. I would now have to go back and reformat it to make it look good. Very awkward. ) You just had to Altl while your cursor is still in the paragraph. Or use Auto-format. Simply put, TheBat's editor doesn't have the concept of a paragraph. Not quite, it uses the now common business letter paragraph, everything between two empty lines is a paragraph. It may be a lot of things, but it is not convenient. And all of the popular text-only editors for Windows (Textpad, NoteTab, Ultraedit) managen to avoid this problem. All three mentioned, and Word since 2k, offer free-caret editing ike TB, but they don't have the restriction of using only plain text with a certain line lengths. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 I never think of the future. It comes soon enough. (Albert Einstein) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Melissa! On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 3:07:25 AM you wrote: You seem to like Agent's editor, and I think it's a very weak editor...especially in comparison to the editor in The Bat! To each our own. :-) I'd really like to use TB's editor with Agent, whose editor is nothing more than a tool to put in characters and observe a pre-defined line length. The only good part about it is they way you can easily change between VPF and NVPF - or was that only in message view? -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 Shoot them all - let GOD sort them out. (Grandpa Simpson) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bruno Fernandes [BF] wrote:'
BF 1. Those willing to accept the features TB provides while also
BF wanting the option to do things in a way they consider more
BF standardized and intuitive
BF 2. Those firmly entrenched in the belief that TB is doing it the
BF right way - the *only* way. And that anyone who disagrees is out
BF to somehow destroy the program they prefer to use.
Could we just maintain the discussion without labelling. #2 sounds
very negative and I can't think of anyone who would fall into that
group and has commented in favour of TB!'s editor. If you think
anyone falls into that group then you're seriously misunderstanding.
:/
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Bruno! On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 3:16:48 PM you wrote: I think many problems, such as editor preference, stem from comments such as a and b above. Who's definition of natural has been used to qualify TB's usage? Not you and I. The sentences you quoted are marketing claims, not scientifically proven ones. Which I think is obvious and not to discuss. We agree that the Agent editor has many shortcomings but also has a number of strengths. Don't know why this paragraph was in, I never doubted Agent's abilities. Whenever someone comes up with add news capabilities to TB I strongly recommend Agent for that. Alas, you're now confusing e-mail with text composition. No. Go back to my original message and you will see that I don't. So, you cannot just make up a paragraph by one new line, you need two. Says who? You can easily make a new paragraph in agent with a single new line. This is all in implementation. My sentence is an observation, not a god-given principle. Which has become standard even in business letters Oh oh Someone bringing up standards while trying to make an argument against the very use of them. Whatever you say here about me is a) wrong b) derogatory. I don't care if TB's editor uses any presumed standards, I want it to work properly under certain conditions. which it does, especially considering e-mail. Must be because your viewer isn't smart enough to wrap those lines. :) No, look at the context of my rhetorical question and you'll easily see that it is certain mailers (like OE/OL, although not exclusively them and not under all circumstances) don't use LB/CR at the end of a line. How often do I make a table in an email message? Not very often. So, now we are down to, I don't do it, so leave it. Don't take away my freedoms in using a program because you don't think it's convenient for you. I don't find it very convenient having to constantly ALT-L. You can use whatever you want. As I want to use what I want. What I don't want is a variety of programmes behaving alike; that is not the point of choice. If someone wants HTML mail composition, use a mailer who can do it, not TB. You don't like the editor *and* are not comfortable with the reasons others give why they like it *and* don't want the advice of how you can achieve what you want, go use another mailer. That's why we need different [sic!] e-mail clients (this applies to every artefact). But that functionality does seem tied to the incorrect function. It would more logically be tied to auto-wrap (because that's what it's doing) rather than auto-format. I am not in the least interested of which function should be labeled how. Yes, I'd like companies to try to make up useful labels, I'd like to have an easy way through a programme, car, cell phone, digital camera, computer. But that wasn't the point here, I just tried to show you (or whoever) how to achieve what you want. I will point you back to your own comments regarding Agent. Really, follow along. :) Composition can be presented in any way a software author wants. There are really no limits with this. The relationship between composition and final text can be as similar or as obscure as a software author would like it to be. And Marck and I tried to argue why it is a good idea to see during composition how the end product looks like. ever heard the term WYSIWYG? It's a feature, yes. It's wrong, no. It doesn't fit your needs, maybe. He, and others, including myself, are telling you is most definitely does not suit our needs. No maybe about it. It is wrong only in the sense that it does not follow normal conventions. cut I consider a shortcoming. Second first: Me not. Whatever you consider normal conventions ... others may not. Consider a thought experiment, a so-called other world: If TB's editor had been there before Word and become more popular (through which ways ever), the normal convention would be TB's behaviour. It's pretty clear already. The bottom line is that everyone (I hope) using the program has paid to do so. It is completely within reason to want a little bit more from your investment. Well, I paid for a programme as is, not because it may in the future be what I want it to be. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 Todo, pero con manera (Everything, but with civility.). Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
RE:[Model/view design for text editor][27/12/2002-19:54 GMT]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Ø©Eªnº - þªT®iª - NØsT®ª] Las Palmas, Islas Canarias [27/12/2002, 19:54 GMT] [Mensaje original, 27/12/2002, 19:45] Dierk Haasis [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: DH Hello Bruno! DH On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 3:16:48 PM you wrote: I think many problems, such as editor preference, stem from comments such as a and b above. Who's definition of natural has been used to qualify TB's usage? DH Not you and I. The sentences you quoted are marketing claims, not DH scientifically proven ones. Which I think is obvious and not to DH discuss We agree that the Agent editor has many shortcomings but also has a number of strengths DH Don't know why this paragraph was in, I never doubted Agent's DH abilities. Whenever someone comes up with add news capabilities to DH TB I strongly recommend Agent for that Alas, you're now confusing e-mail with text composition DH No. Go back to my original message and you will see that I don't So, you cannot just make up a paragraph by one new line, you need two Says who? You can easily make a new paragraph in agent with a single new line. This is all in implementation DH My sentence is an observation, not a god-given principle Which has become standard even in business letters Oh oh Someone bringing up standards while trying to make an argument against the very use of them DH Whatever you say here about me is DH a) wrong DH b) derogatory DH I don't care if TB's editor uses any presumed standards, I want it to DH work properly under certain conditions. which it does, especially DH considering e-mail Must be because your viewer isn't smart enough to wrap those lines. :) DH No, look at the context of my rhetorical question and you'll easily DH see that it is certain mailers (like OE/OL, although not exclusively DH them and not under all circumstances) don't use LB/CR at the end of DH a line How often do I make a table in an email message? Not very often DH So, now we are down to, I don't do it, so leave it Don't take away my freedoms in using a program because you don't think it's convenient for you. I don't find it very convenient having to constantly ALT-L DH You can use whatever you want. As I want to use what I want. What I DH don't want is a variety of programmes behaving alike; that is not the DH point of choice. If someone wants HTML mail composition, use a DH mailer who can do it, not TB. You don't like the editor *and* are not DH comfortable with the reasons others give why they like it *and* don't DH want the advice of how you can achieve what you want, go use another DH mailer DH That's why we need different [sic!] e-mail clients (this applies to DH every artefact) But that functionality does seem tied to the incorrect function. It would more logically be tied to auto-wrap (because that's what it's doing) rather than auto-format DH I am not in the least interested of which function should be labeled DH how. Yes, I'd like companies to try to make up useful labels, I'd like DH to have an easy way through a programme, car, cell phone, digital DH camera, computer DH But that wasn't the point here, I just tried to show you (or whoever) DH how to achieve what you want I will point you back to your own comments regarding Agent. Really, follow along. :) Composition can be presented in any way a software author wants. There are really no limits with this. The relationship between composition and final text can be as similar or as obscure as a software author would like it to be DH And Marck and I tried to argue why it is a good idea to see during DH composition how the end product looks like. ever heard the term DH WYSIWYG? It's a feature, yes. It's wrong, no. It doesn't fit your needs, maybe He, and others, including myself, are telling you is most definitely does not suit our needs. No maybe about it. It is wrong only in the sense that it does not follow normal conventions DH cut I consider a shortcoming DH Second first: Me not DH Whatever you consider normal conventions ... others may not DH Consider a thought experiment, a so-called other world: If TB's DH editor had been there before Word and become more popular (through DH which ways ever), the normal convention would be TB's behaviour It's pretty clear already. The bottom line is that everyone (I hope) using the program has paid to do so. It is completely within reason to want a little bit more from your investment DH Well, I paid for a programme as is, not because it may in the future DH be what I want it to be --- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Model/view design for text editor][27/12/2002-19:54 GMT]
Hi [, on Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:54:46 +GMT (27.12.02, 20:54 +0100GMT here), you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : ©ªNª®iºJ¹ ©ªNª®iºJ¹ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Ø©Eªnº - þªT®iª - NØsT®ª] Well, you know your ascii characters. If there was anything else you wanted to tell us, I must say, I'm sorry, I didn't get it... -- Cheers Peter There are two infinite things, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not quite sure about the universe yet. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Winamp currently playing: Strawbs - Just Love Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: [Model/view design for text editor][27/12/2002-19:54 GMT]
Hello Peter! On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 9:22:28 PM you wrote: If there was anything else you wanted to tell us, I must say, I'm sorry, I didn't get it... He tried to send me something privately. -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 He who hesitates is probably right. Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
RE:[[Model/view design for text editor][27/12/2002-19:54GMT]][27/12/2002-20:35 GMT]
No, sorry, that was a mistake. I hit the kbord badly and the message was fired off. Excuse me. I was trying to send a few comments to a german TB colleague. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Ø©Eªnº - þªT®iª - NØsT®ª] Las Palmas, Canary Islands [27/12/2002, 20:35 GMT] Using The Bat! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 [Original message, 27/12/2002, 20:22] Peter Meyns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PM Hi [, PM on Fri, 27 Dec 2002 19:54:46 +GMT (27.12.02, 20:54 +0100GMT here), PM you wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] : ©ªNª®iºJ¹ ©ªNª®iºJ¹ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Ø©Eªnº - þªT®iª - NØsT®ª] PM Well, you know your ascii characters PM If there was anything else you wanted to tell us, I must say, I'm sorry, I PM didn't get it.. --- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Dierk Haasis [DH] wrote:'
It's pretty clear already. The bottom line is that everyone (I hope)
using the program has paid to do so. It is completely within reason
to want a little bit more from your investment.
DH Well, I paid for a programme as is, not because it may in the
DH future be what I want it to be.
Are you implying here that users should use the program as is and
not ask for enhancements? If the application doesn't work in all
ways that one wishes, then one should either tolerate it or use
another mail client? No application that addresses complex needs as
TB! will ever satisfy all users. When I bought TB!, I was happy
enough with it to choose it as my default client though there were
aspects of it that I wasn't satisfied with. Since then, MANY
features have been added/enhanced to make using TB! that much better
and many of these were as a direct result of list discussions. Most
buy software expecting enhancements that will make it work that much
better for them. I certainly wouldn't buy software that's not being
actively developed unless under very special circumstances.
Each and every user has a right to recommend any changes they
perceive as being needed or that would make their use of TB! better.
TB! has a lot of special features to offer and a user can easily
have a lot of problems with TB!'s editor and still wish to use a lot
of TB!'s other features. This is why I can understand the expressed
discontent with TB!'s editor and wishing for it to be changed.
The initial post of discontent with TB!'s editor was one stating
that the editor was broken and needed fixing. Those like myself who
enjoy TB!'s editor and have used other specialized editors, would
understandably step in to disagree, especially when the opinion is
stated in such a factual manner. I see no problems with disagreeing
and our stepping in shouldn't be taken as an indirect statement that
arguments against how the editor currently works aren't welcome. I
really don't care either way if the editor is enhanced to be made to
behave in a more standard fashion. But please! I really hope that if
these enhancements are implemented, that this be done while it's
current capabilities are left intact. I know no other editors that
can be made to behave just like TB! and do what TB! does in a snap
without heavy tweaking and the creation of macros (ultra-edit
included). Believe me, I've tried and in the end just grew to
tolerate and get accustomed to the quirks in exchange for the
benefits. The main quirk here being that TB! denotes a paragraph by
a text block bounded by two empty lines. Once you're familiar with
how it works, it's a very predictable editor and what you see is
what the sender will get at the other end ... at all times.
Using an external editor would amount to a difficult prospect with
the likelihood that current functionality would be lost, such as
applying quick templates to the text. An integrated editor is
therefore more desirable.
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Hello Allie! On Friday, December 27, 2002 at 11:55:50 PM you wrote: It's pretty clear already. The bottom line is that everyone (I hope) using the program has paid to do so. It is completely within reason to want a little bit more from your investment. DH Well, I paid for a programme as is, not because it may in the DH future be what I want it to be. Are you implying here that users should use the program as is and not ask for enhancements? Surely not. I just commented on the implication of the original message. We should be happy to get enhancements *without paying again*. That is an advantage of software over hardware. Or do you consider it your right to ask for enhancements in your car because you paid for it? And I don't mean repairs. I am writing about complaints that your motor doesn't deliver the power you want. Or a slightly rougher ride than you expected. Isn't the big advantage of shareware to test it before deciding to buy it and then complain. All this sounds much more harsh than it was originally intended to be. The thread started with a good - actually the best ever on the lists - critique of TB's editor. Several members tried to answer it, within reason. Then came up one or two messages telling those that like the editor as is off. In the last few weeks I found that ever more users seem to like TB but want more features, not all of them unreasonable, most surely be possible through a plug-in interface, or being optional. All in all I find a strange trend toward making TB what other mailers are. Sometimes even on the grounds of variety is essential. Well, Maxxx once (actually more than once) wrote passionately about TB first ironing out bugs then adding features. He also kept track of feature requests for a while and tried to sort them by importance. Back to the editor: Leave it as it is but make it possible to use an external editor. Oh, I just see that this is not only a long-standing wish but also one several times being reported as will be in v2. Alright with me. Not alright it is (shades of Yoda) to tell me about the wrong way of TB's editor. BTW, some of the arguments used pro TB haven't even been addressed ... -- Dierk Haasis The Bat 1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows XP 5.1 2600Service Pack 1 That's what Love will make you do ... (Little Milton) Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Moderator, it is good to promote civility, but you are disciplining the wrong person. This quote does in fact exemplify camp #2: You don't like the editor *and* are not comfortable with the reasons others give why they like it *and* don't want the advice of how you can achieve what you want, go use another mailer. That's why we need different [sic!] e-mail clients (this applies to every artefact). So we must retain every artefact [sic], accept the reasons and advice without questionor use another mailer! This bullying seems like camp #2 in spades. Some unix wizards love emacs because they have memorized all the magic keystrokes required to edit without touching a mouse. Most of us are not like that. We want our editors to do low-level thinking for us. There are good reasons why most editors behave differently from Bat. I had to use Utilities Format Block Left at least ten times while editing this short note. I find that to be a nuisance. Others share this viewpoint and it is perfectly reasonable. We do not intend to give up on Bat, but to offer our experiences in an effort to make Bat even better. I've used Bat for many years and still find this editor very annoying. So my habit is to use UltraEdit alongside Bat. I would rather use just one program. The suggestion of model/view should not be shouted down. Model/view would give all of us what we want. People who like hard linefeeds and Alt-L could keep on using them. Meanwhile the rest of us would have a more intelligent and pleasant editor taking care of those irritating details for us. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Evans [ME] wrote:'
ME Moderator, it is good to promote civility, but you are disciplining
ME the wrong person.
I disagree. I'm against the labelling of others into groups with
particular attitudes. It doesn't usually come off well in that it it
helps to nurture attitude battles (as what has developed in large
part here), rather than focus on the technical aspects of the
discussion.
ME This quote does in fact exemplify camp #2:
It may, but that's besides the point of my initial appeal not to
label.
ME So we must retain every artefact [sic], accept the reasons and
ME advice without questionor use another mailer! This bullying
ME seems like camp #2 in spades.
Bullying implies that Dierk, who made the statement, has power over
you and is abusing this power, i.e., taking unfair advantage of you
and others. Dierk has no such power and knows this as well. He's
just expressing his opinion as you're doing yours. It may not go
down well with you as it didn't with me, so just refute it. I did
just this with my comments to his post. I do agree with your
technical sentiments on the matter. :)
ME Some unix wizards love emacs because they have memorized all the
ME magic keystrokes required to edit without touching a mouse. Most
ME of us are not like that.
Agreed.
ME We want our editors to do low-level thinking for us. There are
ME good reasons why most editors behave differently from Bat.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree with this. I could counter that there are
good reasons why it's not good for e-mail editors to work as those
integrated with the majority of e-mail clients out there. TB!'s
editor is quirky in some ways, I can certainly agree with this.
However, IMO, what it can make you achieve is certainly on a superior
track to what the others offer.
ME I had to use Utilities Format Block Left at least ten times
ME while editing this short note.
You could minimize this with the help of the auto-format option.
Shift-Ctrl-F toggles this option. You can also make it the default
in the Editor Preferences.
ME I find that to be a nuisance. Others share this viewpoint and it
ME is perfectly reasonable.
Indeed it is. :)
ME We do not intend to give up on Bat, but to offer our experiences
ME in an effort to make Bat even better. I've used Bat for many
ME years and still find this editor very annoying. So my habit is
ME to use UltraEdit alongside Bat. I would rather use just one
ME program.
I understand this.
ME The suggestion of model/view should not be shouted down.
Hmmm. I don't really see where it was shouted down. The view was
categorically put forward, with the opinion that TB!'s editor 'needs
help'. TB!'s editor was compared to 'real text editors' implying
that TB!'s editor wasn't one. This will definitely trigger counter
opinions by those who enjoy using TB!'s editor, especially those
with years of experience using other plain text editors.
ME Model/view would give all of us what we want. People who like
ME hard linefeeds and Alt-L could keep on using them. Meanwhile
ME the rest of us would have a more intelligent and pleasant
ME editor taking care of those irritating details for us.
More intelligent More pleasant??? If you make statements like
that, be prepared for the rebuttals. :) Or was it provoked? :)
I personally disagree with it since one's opinion of an editors
behaviour being pleasant is subjective, and depends on their needs or
wishes. As to intelligent? I wouldn't even go there. :/
- --
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html
iD8DBQE+DSR4V8nrYCsHF+IRArMlAKCLh/uaz+kZcijTNJFSDqbGbiNTtQCgtwbA
bkx6QLHmW1j1u4KsoUVmSNw=
=bMsd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
I had made queries in the past about the editor and was told that it would be very difficult to make the editor work in a more standard fashion and yet maintain its current behaviour as an option. Model/view would have made it easier to support the current behavior in the first place. Model/view is such standard practice, and good design, that it is taught to computer science students everywhere. Any user interface software that lacks a model/view distinction is difficult to change once it is written. The current features being a really free caret, being able to reflow quoted material, being able to work so easily with indented text. It's similar to the frequently expressed desire to be able to use variable width fonts with the editor. I see none of that incompatible with model/view in any way, and indeed model/view would support all of them superbly. Text editing is too fundamental an area for an e-mail client to be giving newbies a culture shock. IMO, it should ideally be the aim that what the prospective user is accustomed to is initially presented Agreed. I don't know if this is the case with the editor even though I so like its current feature set. I only disagree with those who wish for changes/enhancement only with regards to their claim that the editor is broken or backward. Brokenness is in the eye of the beholder. My personal feeling is that it is broken. Having to press Alt-L every ten seconds tells me there is something the computer should be doing for me automatically. And I detest that floating cursor which eveyone else views as a feature. I get the impression of a bug every time I accidentally invoke it. I end up with re-drawn I-beams all over the screen, or scrolled off into no-man's land when I try to select text. So one man's feature is another's bug. It's simply different in approach Washboards and Maytag washing machines are simply different approaches too, but one is a lot easier. I, and others have said this much to the developers who have agreed and are receptive to suggestions. Great, thank you. Personally I would just drop in something like this: http://textcontrol.com/tx/features/overview_activex/ http://www.arssoft.com/products/index.htm?awp or Bat could incorporate some open-source code like http://www.scintilla.org/ http://synedit.sourceforge.net/ http://syn.sourceforge.net/ http://www.anyedit.org/ http://personalpages.tds.net/~edream/front.html http://sourceforge.net/projects/keynote/ http://led-editor.sourceforge.net/ There are over a thousand projects in the text editor category at SourceForge.net. Many of these also support things far beyond Bat's present capability -- like HTML editing, Linux, and collapsible tree views. (I hope for a Linux version of Bat someday, though it is unlikely.) Some of the projects have GPL licensing but others have commercial-friendly licensing. Bat could use this third-party code, modify it, wrap it with ActiveX, whatever they need to do. Just a suggestion, not a demand here. Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
M. Evans [ME] wrote:'
ME I see none of that incompatible with model/view in any way, and
ME indeed model/view would support all of them superbly.
I'm yet to encounter the editor that does support these features as
they exist in TB!. I was looking while getting accustomed to TB!'s
editor. I tried with Ultra-Edit, WinEdt, TextPad and NoteTab Pro. Of
course, this was because I naturally resisted having to change or
adopt new habits. :) I was using Agent as my e-mail client prior to
using TB!. The above mentioned editors can be made to approximate
TB!'s editors abilities with much tweaking (i.e., macro creation),
but not replicate a few of TB!'s editor abilities.
ME Brokenness is in the eye of the beholder. [...]
ME So one man's feature is another's bug.
I now see where you're coming from and better understand some of
your earlier posts. :)
AFAIK, the second statement is incorrect. A bug is always a bug and
will be perceived as buggy behaviour by all those who encounter it.
I can't say this is so about TB!'s editor behaviour.
ME Washboards and Maytag washing machines are simply different
ME approaches too, but one is a lot easier.
'Easier' can be perceived from different angles. Easier can result
from familiarity. 'Easier' can result from making tasks achieved
with less steps. This again depends on what one is already familiar
with and what tasks one wishes to achieve more easily. IOW's, again
subjective.
Splitting your text that I quoted into multiple parts and reflowing
the quoted text segments is made much easier for me using TB!'s
editor than any other integrated editor I've tried with TB!.
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Allie C Martin [ACM] wrote:'
ACM Splitting your text that I quoted into multiple parts and reflowing
ACM the quoted text segments is made much easier for me using TB!'s
ACM editor than any other integrated editor I've tried with TB!.
Ooops!! This last statement
shouldn't have ended with 'with
TB!. The statement is as I
intended without those last two
words. Sorry for any confusion
it may have caused. :)
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
On Saturday, December 28, 2002, 3:21:19 PM, M. wrote [snipped]: There are over a thousand projects in the text editor category at SourceForge.net. Many of these also support things far beyond Bat's present capability -- like HTML editing, Linux, and collapsible tree views. (I hope for a Linux version of Bat someday, though it is unlikely.) Some of the projects have GPL licensing but others have commercial-friendly licensing. Bat could use this third-party code, modify it, wrap it with ActiveX, whatever they need to do. Just a suggestion, not a demand here. My personal preference is that The Bat! should allow editing of messages in the editor of your choice. I would use Vim, which has many features geared towards, or useful for, email editing. The way I see it, TB! editor is never going to be as good an editor as some others, and nor should it be: developers' resources should be spent on email tasks, not (just) editing tasks. My preferred interface would be to have a hotkey open *the current message* in an external editor. When the editor quits, the text of the message is updated. I see no need to have every single message open up immediately in an external editor, because not every message needs advanced editing. Sorry if this has been discussed before; I'm new and it's not in the FAQ. This was just the right time to jump in, in this case. Cheers, Gavin Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gavin Sinclair [GS] wrote:'
GS Sorry if this has been discussed before; I'm new and it's not in
GS the FAQ. This was just the right time to jump in, in this case.
No need to apologize. Your views are welcome here. This thread
is an opinion centric one, and it would be unfair to ask you to read
the archives on others opinions without having the opportunity to
express yours. :)
--
-=] allie_M [=- {List Moderator}
MUA: TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition ___ OS: WinXP Pro (SP1)
Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday, December 27, 2002, Allie Martin wrote... ME I see none of that incompatible with model/view in any way, and ME indeed model/view would support all of them superbly. I'm yet to encounter the editor that does support these features as they exist in TB!. I was looking while getting accustomed to TB!'s editor. I tried with Ultra-Edit, WinEdt, TextPad and NoteTab Pro. Of course, this was because I naturally resisted having to change or adopt new habits. :) I was using Agent as my e-mail client prior to using TB!. The above mentioned editors can be made to approximate TB!'s editors abilities with much tweaking (i.e., macro creation), but not replicate a few of TB!'s editor abilities. *g* Unfortunately time ran away from me a bit, but I am currently working on a pure notepad like replacement that should do what TB!s editor does. I personally enjoy the way the editor works, and have spent long enough searching for one that works the same ;) - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393 B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73 iQA/AwUBPg0y9iuD6BT4/R9zEQLCDgCg16jWwBm90vOWi7ww+sGdgZ+TNY8AnRY6 Dg/LhdSy6MD0+LLjOe+wlJB4 =etQh -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday, December 25, 2002, M. Evans wrote... The text editor needs help. Its major problem is its use of hard carriage returns (CRLF) during composition. Those should be avoided until necessary, at send time. TheBat's editor style is completely different to those used in most plain text editors, in respect that it is a free-caret editor, allowing you to place your cursor anywhere, and type. The editor itself is a little difficult to get accustomed to at first, but once you're used to it, you start to enjoy it's flexibility. As for your constant use of the menu, ALT + L should cover you there, a little easier to get to, that's for sure. I personally rather enjoy TheBat's editors over any others I have seen available, and in fact started a little while ago to write a custom editor in a similar style. I do agree however, that it'd be nice to be able to incorporate a use external editor feature for those that prefer a different style. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPgtI6CuD6BT4/R9zEQIHmACeIWtOxH7m7A1DGyje8yUKUbcqDGQAnRgd QTY6IP2yG+Xgl6DIsQ0BvlqT =AQVM -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi M., @25-Dec-2002, 20:48 -0700 (03:48 UK time) M. Evans [ME] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: ME The text editor needs help. Its major problem is its use of hard ME carriage returns (CRLF) during composition. Those should be ME avoided until necessary, at send time. I don't think you could have expressed the problem more clearly. That is, the problem with *every thing that doesn't do it like TB*. Far from being avoided, WYSIWYG is as essential in email as it is in any other medium. When you compose a document in a word processor, how would you like for it to print differently from how you composed it? Well, it's the hard returns that let TB do it for plain text email. ME Many text editors have a clean model/view design, instead of ME Bat's confused view is the model design. I disagree. That's not the case. It's about the final destiny of the output. In TB's editor's case, the intent is to send an email. Email doesn't employ any soft wrapping format as a standard. ... snip The fact is that everything you hanker after is right there in TB's text editor behind the Ctrl-Shift-F toggle. Turn it on for typing paragraphs that need to be dynamically flowed. Turn it off for lists and other non-flowed paragraphs. Heck, it will even flow indented paragraphs to perfection. Not many of the other editors you mention do it as elegantly. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+C1NyOeQkq5KdzaARAm3yAKD9Wf1OCPHL15BFfaBpfA9Iek21awCgzlqt cWO7I5VnVVawWfkdU2fMCPM= =sEB5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
Folks, Thursday, December 26, 2002, 11:07:29 AM, you wrote: ME Many text editors have a clean model/view design, instead of ME Bat's confused view is the model design. Marck I disagree. That's not the case. It's about the final destiny of the Marck output. In TB's editor's case, the intent is to send an email. Email Marck doesn't employ any soft wrapping format as a standard. The model/view distinction is compatible with having WYSIWYG. Having one does NOT mean that you must have the other and it does NOT mean that you cannot have the other. It also is compatible with having the put your cursor anywhere model used by TB. Mark highlighted the importance of having the model/view distinction: It makes some kinds of editing changes vastly easier. d/ -- Dave mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850 Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dave, @26-Dec-2002, 12:13 -0800 (20:13 UK time) Dave Crocker [DC] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: DC The model/view distinction is compatible with having WYSIWYG. DC Having one does NOT mean that you must have the other and it DC does NOT mean that you cannot have the other. ... yet, in most cases where the view is separated from the intent, the obfuscation only serves to confuse. When you talk to the average OE user about line wrap they get very confused very quickly. DC It also is compatible with having the put your cursor anywhere DC model used by TB. So how can absolute formatting in a plain ASCII text document be distinguished from having soft formatting that changes to hard formatting when the send button is pressed? If what is sent is to be exactly the same in appearance as what was typed, then what's the difference? I feel a lot more confident in knowing that what I send is formatted exactly as I intended. I am grateful that TB makes no changes whatsoever to what I wrote when I hit Send. DC Mark highlighted the importance of having the model/view DC distinction: DC It makes some kinds of editing changes vastly easier. I object to the use of the word vastly here - it highlights a complete misunderstanding of the way TB's very excellent editor actually works, something it would be hard pressed to do if it did not have the model as the view. Sure, if it had been written differently from the start, it might be able to provide the differentiation being asked for. But it wasn't and it is what it is. It does have very simple keystrokes to compensate for the lack of soft internal format construction. If used sensibly, it can do things just as easily (using Ctrl-F as a toggle or Alt-L to reformat marked sections on-the-fly) and sometimes even more easily (free-caret / column tabs / wrapped paragraph indentation and more) than the supposedly more capable competition. Some users even have elaborate macro keys set up in their system enhancements to invoke a TB editor session when editing plain text as a more capable alternative... and some of these may even be ex-NoteTab or UltraEdit users. Allie, another moderator here, certainly used to do this, and, I believe, has passed on the method to others when asked. It has always been hoped that the v2 release would include extensibility in such areas as external editor support and some kind of modular plug-in capability. This would solve the problem without forcing RITlabs into considering any sweeping changes to a fundamental and widely appreciated component at this stage in the life cycle of the version 1 code. I for one would stay with the status quo. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.62 Christmas Edition on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+C26iOeQkq5KdzaARAoTfAJ47apvO2CvlMm0uuovKgIygd2jqSgCgtNaW Zy1FiT8YtiY9t+IXPN28aME= =zufI -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
UltraEdit gives me all the capabilities that have been touted as unique to Bat in response to my post. If I want hard CRLFs, I can put them anywhere. If I want to put the cursor anywhere, I can do that. If I want the view to reflect the current model data perfectly, I just turn off word wrap! If I am ready to send a message that I've typed into UltraEdit, I just Convert wrap to CRLF at the current window boundary and bingo, paste into Bat and send. UltraEdit even lets me work in column mode where I can manipulate columns of text as a block, such as inserting on each line. Model/view is a very well-known and well-established software design principle. It adds a great deal of flexibility to any editor. But for those who actually like Bat editing, UltraEdit can imitate that too. Such is the power of model/view design! Best regards, Mark Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, December 26, 2002, M. Evans wrote... UltraEdit gives me all the capabilities that have been touted as unique to Bat in response to my post. If I want hard CRLFs, I can put them anywhere. If I want to put the cursor anywhere, I can do that. Er... no it doesn't... I just clicked 5 lines down past the end of the last line, and it didn't do anything... It allows you to configure it to select past End of Line but not past End of File. - -- Jonathan Angliss ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQA/AwUBPgt1OSuD6BT4/R9zEQLvMwCfUbJqKFMCeBtXuKTNy6oQk0RnIG0AoL1w PO9HCQ3ueUQMKZZDnXGKtuS8 =Pwp+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62 | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Model/view design for text editor
First post, and I recognize it's going to make me somewhat unpopular in the eyes of some, but I would very much like to respond. The way TheBat's editor handles linebreaks is seriously broken in my opinion. It was the one single issue that kept me from purchasing TheBat for years. I finally relented, since I need multiple accounts and TheBat *is* still the best email client available for Windows... but the editor bugs me every day. So how can absolute formatting in a plain ASCII text document be distinguished from having soft formatting that changes to hard formatting when the send button is pressed? In precisely the way other clients do. I'm not talking about brain-dead software like Outlook Express; I'm talking about *excellent* software such as Forte Agent. There is actually very little to distinguish! In all your comments, above and below, you're implying that TheBat's behavior is somehow standard, whereas all other applications behave in ways that deviate from the standard. But please recognize that it's TheBat that behaves in a non-standard way. Specifically, it inserts a newline character where the user didn't. So again, there is nothing to disttinguish. The program should simply respect what the user entered. If I want a paragraph break, I'll press Enter. If I don't, I don't. The client can and should break lines at a predefined length when sending, and all modern email clients do so, although it isn't really necessary most of the time. (Note: I know about interoperability; in early 90s I had an account on a VAX machine - the 'mail' program would simply crash if I didn't hit Enter within a span of 256 characters. Which is why the option to hard-wrap should be there.) If what is sent is to be exactly the same in appearance as what was typed, then what's the difference? Does it have to be the same in appearance? Isn't it much more convenient if you can resize the window as you're typing, and have the text automatically conform to the new size of the window - and so can the recipient? Isn't it more convenient when, if you add or remove some text inside a paragraph, the paragraph stays, rather than being split into a bunch of uneven lines? I feel a lot more confident in knowing that what I send is formatted exactly as I intended. I'd rather have the confidence of knowing that what I type is displayed exactly as I intended. The essence of my gripe is that TheBat insists on inserting linebreaks where I didn't enter them. Initially, I thought it was a hitch of an early version that would eventually be ironed out - but now that it seems to be a well-entrenched feature, it's still wrong. I am grateful that TB makes no changes whatsoever to what I wrote when I hit Send. I am grateful that Forte Agent lets me type and reformat easily, and still sends RFC-conformant messages. In other words, it provides the best of both worlds. (the above is what TheBat did after I inserted it provides into a previously-typed paragraph. I would now have to go back and reformat it to make it look good. Very awkward. ) DC It makes some kinds of editing changes vastly easier. I object to the use of the word vastly here - it highlights a complete misunderstanding of the way TB's very excellent editor actually works, something it would be hard pressed to do if it did not have the model as the view. Sure, if it had been written differently from the start, it might be able to provide the differentiation being asked for. Simply put, TheBat's editor doesn't have the concept of a paragraph. It only has a concept of a line. It doesn't know or care where a paragraph begins and ends. It is excellent in other ways, but on the point under discussion TheBat is making a throwback to very old times, and it's not at all convenient. I often type lists into messages, such as a) foo b) bar c) baz and if I happen to not put a blank line before or after the list, and then hit Alt+L to reformat, because I entered or deleted some text in the middle, I get this: --- cut and it's not at all convenient. I often type lists into messages, such as a) foo b) bar c) baz --- cut It may be a lot of things, but it is not convenient. And all of the popular text-only editors for Windows (Textpad, NoteTab, Ultraedit) managen to avoid this problem. All of them, also, have the *option* to save a file with or without linebreaks (or using 'soft' / 'hard' breaks, depending on the preferred terminology). So these apps give you the behavior you prefer, and they give me the behavior I do. TheBat is weaker here, simply because it does not have the flexibility. The inability to distinguish between lines and paragraphs is not TheBat's virtue, it's a shortcoming, and one widely avoided. Even the standard Windows memo control is smarter than that - because it doesn't really require all that much smarts. Don't insert a linebreak unless user hit Enter. It does have very simple keystrokes to compensate for the lack of soft internal format
Re: Model/view design for text editor
In [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Marek Jedlinski [MJ] wrote:' MJ First post, and I recognize it's going to make me somewhat MJ unpopular in the eyes of some, but I would very much like to MJ respond. So, what's popular and what's not around here anyway? :) MJ The way TheBat's editor handles linebreaks is seriously broken MJ in my opinion. I beg to differ on this one. :) I think it's different, though not broken. MJ It was the one single issue that kept me from purchasing TheBat MJ for years. Funny, it's one of the things about TB! that makes me such a faithful user of it. :) It would seem that this editor invokes strong emotions in both directions. MJ In precisely the way other clients do. I'm not talking about MJ brain-dead software like Outlook Express; I'm talking about MJ *excellent* software such as Forte Agent. The last time I was using Forte' Agent, with the aid of PowerPro macros, I was using TB!'s editor to create my news posts. I preferred using it. MJ There is actually very little to distinguish! In all your MJ comments, above and below, you're implying that TheBat's MJ behavior is somehow standard, whereas all other applications MJ behave in ways that deviate from the standard. But please MJ recognize that it's TheBat that behaves in a non-standard way. Yes, it does work in an unusual way that may be uncomfortably unfamiliar at first, but proves advantageous in the context of e-mail and formatting. Soft-wrapping in e-mail can be dangerous. Why? I don't know how many e-mail viewers you can set to wrap received mail text at 72 characters or whatever character length you wish to as with your favourite plain text editor. The most your e-mail viewer will do is to Window wrap. Soft-wrapping gives the passing user a false sense of security in that they believe that what they see in front of their screen is what I'll see on mine. Case in point, someone decides to not set a wrap length and use window wrapping instead. His window is sized so that his text wraps at about 80 characters. Things look great on the senders screen. I now receive his message. I run TB! maximized and my e-mail viewer can show up to 180 characters per line. His e-mail spreads across my screen in an unreadable manner. I therefore have to reduce the window size just to make the lines wrap at a reasonable length. You tell the sender that his lines are too long. The sender denies this saying that the lines looked fine at his end and that you the recipient should fix your application. Wrapping text on sending is also a bad thing since it's rare for it to be done without problems. The gymnastics of PGP signing messages is testimony to this. The same goes for the famous chain messages with horrid quoted wrapping thanks to reflow on sending done by OE. Only Forte' Agent seems to get this one right since it does seem to insert hard line breaks where the soft line breaks are when you've finished typing. So it doesn't really reflow text to look different from what you're seeing before you hit send. Unfortunately, Forte' Agent will not reflow quoted material. It will not auto-indent and reflow the auto-indented text as needed. You can't switch between different selection modes. I don't have a free caret. It's very difficult to convert repetitive text format routines into macros as I can with TB!'s editor. TB! does away with soft-wrapping. The user is therefore always aware of the formatting the recipient will be looking at when he/she receives the message. I really appreciate this control. MJ Specifically, it inserts a newline character where the user MJ didn't. So again, there is nothing to disttinguish. No need to distinguish, since TB!'s editor doesn't use soft line feeds. It's just a different approach that really works for e-mail. If TB! breaks a line, it's a hard line break. ... period. MJ The program should simply respect what the user entered. It does. MJ If I want a paragraph break, I'll press Enter. If I don't, I MJ don't. Switch off wrapping then. It will not give you line breaks unless you enter them. However, no window wrapping since that would comprise soft line breaks which it doesn't support. MJ The client can and should break lines at a predefined length MJ when sending, and all modern email clients do so, although it MJ isn't really necessary most of the time. It is necessary in the vast majority of instances, and most modern clients cause all sorts of annoying problems by reflowing text on sending. This is one thing I check before using a client. If it reflows text on sending, in a way that makes me unable to predict formatting, I don't use it. This is how I came to use Forte' Agent before TB!. MJ Does it have to be the same in appearance? Isn't it much more MJ convenient if you can resize the window as you're typing, and MJ have the text automatically conform to the new size of the MJ window I guess so, but the resultant problems created by the benefit earned doesn't balance out in my
