Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Friday, August 11, 2000, Steve Lamb wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about
Communication between mail clients and external editors:
SL> Oh, it is more than justifiable. I downloaded it and boy did the
SL> problems come flooding in. First off, default
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, August 11, 2000, 5:03:19 AM, Soth wrote:
> I don't believe that's a justifiable claim.
Oh, it is more than justifiable. I downloaded it and boy did the problems
come flooding in. First off, default colors were completely unacceptable.
W
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, August 11, 2000, 5:03:19 AM, Soth wrote:
> Although superficially valid, after all they are all email clients, the
> difference between TB! and, for example, Outlook is significant. As
Right, one email client does a decent job at IMAP and
>> Then why were you so eager to term it "another notepad wannabe"?
> Because most, if not all, ASCII editors on Windows aren't much above that
> level. I've taken a look at UltraEdit and wasn't impressed by it in the
> least. Same stuff, different programmer
I don't believe that's a justi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Friday, August 11, 2000, 3:40:39 AM, Soth wrote:
> Then why were you so eager to term it "another notepad wannabe"?
Because most, if not all, ASCII editors on Windows aren't much above that
level. I've taken a look at UltraEdit and wasn't impres
>> So what exactly is better than UltraEdit? In my opinion and it blows
>> Word and Emacs out of the water.
> I've never used it. Why should I when I've had joe and vim?
Then why were you so eager to term it "another notepad wannabe"? As much
as I am a vi fan (it's the only editor I use in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 11:43:19 PM, Oleg wrote:
> It doesn't remain in memory -- it is dumped to swapfile and next time
> I will need it it will be ready a bit faster than if started again. It
> will be an economy of my time if I use it frequentl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 11:43:19 PM, Oleg wrote:
> It doesn't remain in memory -- it is dumped to swapfile and next time
> I will need it it will be ready a bit faster than if started again. It
> will be an economy of my time if I use it frequentl
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Thursday, August 10, 2000, Steve Lamb wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about
Communication between mail clients and external editors:
SL> Like I said, a cheap, garden variety notepad wannabe. Get a real editor.
SL> Unless you've got Word or Emacs t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 2:22:25 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> I was thinking that more powerful editors like those you and I use
> could implement this as either a core function or in an add-on DLL (.so
> for Linux). Stupider editors could rely on a small w
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 13:44:52 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>TB! will soon be on Linux.
Cool!
>Which needs to be defined for each editor. Most editors can't even
>implement anything more complex than a simple search and replace correctly. I
>doubt they would even begin to consider this. No
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 12:32:09 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> First, does it need to be cross-platform? Would one run an email client
> and editor on different machines?
TB! will soon be on Linux. The issue isn't what the user will do, but
what the p
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:09:01 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>What other protocol is there that will work across all platforms? Every
>other form of direct process control is platform specific. The only things
>you can count on are the basics on the OS level.
First, does it need to be cross-platform?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 10:51:18 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> Ideally there should be a standard editor "server protocol" that all
> editors should support so that editor-using clients (like mail
> composition programs) need not include an editor but can t
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 02:07:02 -0500, Curtis wrote:
>This is the sort of thing I'm referring to Kenneth. Having to close the
>editor every time in PMMail is plain awkward.
I agree; my editor (an Emacs clone) is pretty quick to start and exit,
but I don't want a separate instance to work as a clien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 7:20:46 AM, Jamie wrote:
> So what exactly is better than UltraEdit? In my opinion and it blows
> Word and Emacs out of the water.
I've never used it. Why should I when I've had joe and vim?
- --
Steve C. Lam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Steve,
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 14:29:25, you wrote:
SL> Like I said, a cheap, garden variety notepad wannabe. Get a real
editor.
SL> Unless you've got Word or Emacs there is /NO/ need for the editor to
remain
SL> in memory except to s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thursday, August 10, 2000, 2:43:00 AM, Oleg wrote:
SL>> use are a little more advaced than the garden variety notepad programmed by a
SL>> shareware wannabe visual basic programmer?
> Because I don't exit my UltraEdit. I just close project with all fi
Hello, the Bat! list recipients,
Thursday, August 10, 2000, Steve Lamb wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about
Communication between mail clients and external editors:
SL> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:07:02AM -0500, Curtis wrote:
>> This is the sort of thing I'm referring to Kenneth. Havin
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 02:07:02AM -0500, Curtis wrote:
> This is the sort of thing I'm referring to Kenneth. Having to close the
> editor every time in PMMail is plain awkward. It may be natural to Steve
> but it's bad. I'd only put up with it if I really much preferred the
> external editor over
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:00:50 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
KP> Another approach is to use a DDE-aware editor. (Epsilon is also one
KP> of these.) The client program (eg. TB or PMMail) can send a DDE
KP> message to an existing instance of such a program to open a file,
KP> and register some kind of
Greetings Kenneth!
On Wednesday, August 09, 2000 at 21:00:50 GMT -0700 (which was 9:00 PM where you
think I live) [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
KP> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:37:54 -0500, Curtis wrote:
I have a problem with it personally. Why can't the send action be made
to close the edito
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 20:37:54 -0500, Curtis wrote:
>>> I have a problem with it personally. Why can't the send action be made
>>> to close the editor?
>SL> How is it supposed to?
>If I knew I wouldn't be asking. I asked why can't it be done. I'm
>actually giving PMMail the benefit of the doubt and
23 matches
Mail list logo
