[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Date Index Thread Index Search archive:
Date:Mon Dec 14 15:58:21 1992 
Subject:Re: Editors 
From:Tim Read 
Volume-ID:921214.01 

>>>>> On 11 Dec 92 21:03:47 GMT, pop@cs.umass.edu ( Robin Popplestone ) said:
> I must confess to using Ved for almost everything, even having hitched it
> up to viewers for .dvi, .ps and .o files. In general computationally
> literate culture (as opposed to computer science types) it would appear to
> be evolving as more consistent with how most people actually use computers
> than is EMACS, and thus arguably a more general purpose ASCII editor.

> There are certain architectural features of EMACS one does like however.
> The interpretation of commands via the neat argument descriptors for
> functions is better than VED's ad-hoc vedargument stuff. The modes (like
> them or not - often I feel imprisoned by modes) are an interesting
> application of the shallow binding of variables (i.e. the simple
> forms of dlocal in POP-11). Since shallow binding is usually regarded as a
> BAD THING by theorists, one finds its use in EMACS interesting.
> (Essentially an EMACS buffer has a set of shallow-bound variables which are
> related to the mode, whereas VED in fact has a fixed set of shallow-bound
> variables for each buffer).

> It would be nice to find a POP-11 program which summarised one's mail file.

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.

I'm for 2.

 Tim

--
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tim Read, Email: tmr@cs.bham.ac.uk, The Attention and Affect Project
    Room LG23, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham,
    B15 2TT, England, Phone: +44-(0)21-414-4766, Fax: +44-(0)21-414-4281
    --------------------------------------------------------------------