> So what is your over all conclusion Robin? Perhaps oneof():
> 1) Ved should be extended to offer more of the functionality of EMACS.
> 2) Pop11 should be separated from the editor, to allow full user choice.
Surely (2) should refer to POPLOG and not POP-11? I don't see how POP-11
and VED are connected in any interesting way (unless you count the fact
that VED is largely written in POP-11.)
My own conclusion would be (3), POPLOG should be extended to provide more
standard tools, such as mailers and readers, but this extension should NOT
be done using VED but using the X-toolkit interface. It is completely
unacceptable to me to use a text editor to process my mail. I want a
graphical interface properly geared up for the task in hand. Otherwise
you end up with the lame EMACS compromise and no one wants that!
[The problem with this suggestion is that the actual toolkit to be
used is unclear. Should it be Motif or OpenLook? Or even Athena (yukk)?
Another possibility would be to write a POPLOG-style toolkit based
solely on X-windows and not the X-toolkit (but how to integrate into the
event handler?) Yet another solution would be to extend the Poplog widget
set to provide enough widgets for this.]
However, I do agree with Tim in his suggestion that POPLOG should be
made to work nicely with EMACS. And that probably means making sure that
extend_searchlist is able to broadcast to the user-editor that the search
lists have changed.
Steve
|