Wednesday, January 12, 2000, 2:27:53 AM, Oleg wrote:
> It can do any task at hand depending on user skills even with no need
> to change configuration. Just visit Kizhi for an example.
Then why hold it up as an argument against a single tool? :P
> I didn't say it's all impossible. I just meant that at every task I do
> implement I will need only 1/Nth part of the SuperEditor (vim?). I don't
> think that it is better to spawn another process which first will decide
> which task it spawned for to configure itself in proper way and to load only
> what I need now then just to have a standartized interface within built-in
> editor. Which is almost already done -- most of editor specific shortcuts
> are calling editor specific functions for most editors, while most of common
> functions has common shortcuts.
This is not true. The "common" shortcuts often are implemented
differently in each program. How they behave is different. Furthermore, when
you get used to one editor and switch to another at some point you find
yourself wishing for some feature in the first editor even though at the onset
you didn't expect to need that feature. Case in point, how many "wouldn't it
be nice if x editor did this like y editor" suggestions do you see for the
different editors floating around? Another... I have used paragraph reformat
in my perl coding. ;)
> Why are you so inconsistant? It's underlying data also ASCII text and it has
> the very same basic functions. Where is your difference between 'just' and
> 'not just'?
No, word processing isn't just ASCII text. Word processing also involves
a lot of formatting data which may or may not be represented in ASCII. With
word processing 1/2 is formatting, 1/2 is text. In "straight" ASCII text we
might have minimal formatting (indents, quotes with >, etc) but they are
minimal compared to the overall scheme and are always represented in ASCII.
SL>> Funny, vim uses no CNTL-ALT-SHIFT combonations. I also don't consider it
SL>> bloated compared to reimplementing the same basic editor 20 times.
> Don't vim use standard windows edittext object? I'm sure TB! does.
No, it doesn't. TB! does. OTOH that is because it is trying to conform
to the standard CUA model as well as add its extensions to it. Why do you
think I advocate a common editor based on *USER CHOICE*.
> I mean QuickTemplates e.g. containing %OATTACHEMENTS macro. How?
What is that?
> I don't know 20 different keystrokes just to del line. I use Shift-Dn,
> Del. Works on all comprehensive editors I know (I don't use UNIX).
That is the CUA standard. It also is not deleting a line, it is marking
text and deleting text. There is no "delete line" in CUA.
delete line
dd - vim
d, down arrow - vim
c$ - vim
c, down arrow - vim
^Y - wordstar (& joe)
mark & delete
v, down, d - vim
^Kb, down, ^Kk,^Ky - joe
Don't know emacs, pico, jed, fte, and a dozen or so others.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
