Hello, the Bat! list recipients,

Monday, January 17, 2000, Steve Lamb wrote to Oleg Zalyalov about
suggestion- / wish-list:

>> At least I have need in preview when killing mail. The preview in TB! is
>> based on the editor. Or should there be external message viewer also?

SL>     It isn't based on the editor.  It is the other way around.  The preview is
SL> just a viewing object, no editing.  It is like saying that ACDSee is based on
SL> Photoshop.

Really? They at least share the code for displaying message and cursor
movement  and  search.  Only  editing  itself  disabled  while viewing
message.


>> Inserts a list of files attached to original message. I don't need it as a
>> part of my template which will be passed to an editor from TB! when editor
>> called, because I'll better forget to insert it than will have
>> 'Attachments:<none>' in every message. How to implement it with external
>> editor.

SL>     Uhm, I don't get it.  It will work since that is parsed before the message
SL> is passed to the external editor.

I  don't want to have it in message template, because I will forget to
delete  it  always  -- and I don't want to delete some text from every
message to be able to have it in about 2 or 3 messages a week.

So  it  is  Quick  Template  which  doing the task, the template which
available not before passing text to editor, but while editing. How to
do it with external editor?

>> Release Shift
>> Press Home (if we are speaking about selecting set of lines)
>> Hold Shift
>> Move the cursor to the desired first line.

>> What's  the  problem?  Losing  my current marked text? So what? Why to
>> bother?

SL>     Losing the current marked text.  Why bother?  Ever try to remark 9 pages
SL> of text because of a missed line?  You're also assuming that "home" takes to
SL> where I want, which it does not.  In this one case...

SL> Release shift, PGUP 9 times, up arrow, SHIFT, PgDn 9 times, CNTL-C, move to
SL> place I want it, Shift-INS.

Release shift, pres left, press right, shift, PgUp 9 times, up, CNTL-C,
move.

SL>     In joe:

SL> ^U 9 times, up arrow, ^K^B, move to where I want it, ^K^C.

SL>     In vim:

SL> o, up arrow, y, move to where I want it, P.

SL>     See the large difference there.  In two words: Less Work.
>From  the  other  hand  in  CUA  I  have to know by heart much less of
shortcuts -- it saves time for using rare functions (ok, basic marking
is  not  one,  but  in  CUA  i  use same technique for line and stream
blocks).

Next,  specific  of mail editing for me means that I don't ever create
messages  which  require  9 PgUps to select a portion of it. On not so
big messages the difference is not so dramatic.

>> I think you will agree that there is no sence in calling external editor for
>> filling in any inputline in, say, account properties (and how about address
>> list?).

SL>     No, but those don't require a lot of editing, do they?
Most of messages don't either.

>> You are talking about User Choice. OK, my choice -- current TB!'s internal
>> editor.

SL>     And how does this change that?
I  only  ask  you  to  let me have it. And not to remove it and not to
freeze it.

>> What we do with me now? I don't mean ideal philosophy, I mean my particular
>> case.
SL>     You really don't want me to answer that.
Does that mean that you have to agree with me?

>> I prefer to have 5 specialized editors rather than one capable of doing 5
>> tasks. Because combined mixer and coffee grinder is bad mixer and bad coffee
>> grinder.

SL>     *ROFL*

SL>     Mail Client - Coffee Mixer
SL>     Internal Editor - Coffee Grinder.

SL>     Thank *YOU* for proving my point.
On the other hand:

     Programmer's Editor -- Mixer
     Mail Editor         -- Grinder

     Universal editor    -- Combine

I  prefer  separate  mixer  and  grinder  while  they are bloated with
implementation  of the same electrical engine.

SL> I  do. Because I have sat on phones patiently and politely telling
SL> people  the  right thing professional for years and it got me crap
SL> in  return.  I  am  flat  out  tired of being polite to people who
SL> aren't  polite in return.

There  is not a choice of being right and polite or rude and wrong. It
is  a  choice of being or not being polite to not polite people. It is
completely different problem.

-- 
Best regards,
Oleg Zalyalov.                         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Using The Bat! version 1.38e
  under Windows NT 4.0 Build 1381 Service Pack 6

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
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]>
--------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to