Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #63468 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-17 16:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-06-18 18:27 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 16:27 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-18 00:35 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-06-18 12:51 +0800
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Michael Sorn <invalid@example.com> - 2015-06-18 13:27 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-06-18 15:38 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-18 13:42 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-06-18 22:47 +0800
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 06:21 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 16:07 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-18 15:29 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 16:48 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-18 21:52 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 03:57 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-19 10:02 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 11:24 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 12:10 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 13:24 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 14:09 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 15:30 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:34 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 17:06 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 09:40 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 18:12 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 11:25 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 07:31 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-06-20 17:07 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-06-23 17:44 -0500
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-24 01:48 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-20 12:37 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-19 22:04 -0500
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-06-19 22:36 -0500
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-20 01:23 -0500
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 17:54 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 19:45 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-21 07:19 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-06-20 08:52 +1200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 18:44 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 08:26 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-18 16:41 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 17:13 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 09:26 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-18 18:03 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 18:33 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 10:28 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-06-18 17:28 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-18 21:07 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-18 15:04 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-19 00:38 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-19 01:00 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-19 00:10 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-06-19 00:56 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-19 09:18 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-06-24 08:43 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 19:23 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-24 14:40 -0400
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 19:45 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-18 10:19 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 05:29 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-19 08:26 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> - 2015-06-19 04:08 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:53 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 18:40 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> - 2015-07-11 10:19 +0530
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:59 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-13 18:50 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:37 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-19 21:30 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:46 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-11 20:08 -0400
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 18:26 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:38 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:57 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 16:30 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-12 15:51 +1200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-12 06:03 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 21:36 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-12 21:27 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-13 10:00 +1200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-13 04:16 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 12:47 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-14 08:32 +1200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 11:33 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 11:24 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-15 12:29 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:50 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-13 18:52 +0000
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 08:52 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-15 20:33 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:53 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:47 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:18 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 11:34 -0700
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-06-18 15:59 -0500
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2015-06-19 12:46 +0200
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 19:23 +0100
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-06-18 07:48 -0600
Re: Merging .h and .c source files Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-18 18:27 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | "Morten W. Petersen" <morphex@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-19 04:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mlvtj3$k99$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #63526 |
On 18.06.2015 17:41, Richard Heathfield wrote: [...] >> I like to press the arrow keys and see the cursor move, > > gvim > >> and type text and have >> the system echo my keystrokes to the screen. > > gvim > >> You also need a fast scroll >> of some sort (even if it's only auto repeated page up / page down), and > > gvim > >> some block cut / copy / paste, connected to the clipboard. > > gvim I started using emacs in the nineties, and in those days there was quite a bit of fiddling around with recompiling the Linux kernel, configuring X, and so on. Then it was, and I guess it still can be, very useful to be able to run an editor (or kitchen sink if you will) that has the ability to do a lot of things on a regular terminal. Hm, this actually got me thinking if I should try coding and such on a plain terminal again. -Morten
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr3of3479.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #63526 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 18/06/15 16:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:29:55 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> [snip] >> >> emacs is pretty good, although even it is capable of typing what it thinks >> you should type rather than the buttons you actually press. > > Well, for me that's a deal-breaker. I'm sick and tired of Web search > engines that assume I can't spell or type, and which consequently show > me 437,000,000 hits I don't want, but none of the hits I actually do > want. Someone needs to develop a WYTIWYG search engine. I understand your reaction, but it shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Any response that emacs exhibits can be customized (ie, by a user) so that it doesn't occur. Someone might complain the the barrier to modification is too high, and that might be a fair reaction, but first I think they should try to see what it takes to perform the customization. IME emacs does have a few annoying behaviors, but these are comparatively rare and they are easily turn-offable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <568fa4e7-5cb7-45cc-9ca2-a0a94b521ec2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65213 |
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:53:25 AM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > > On 18/06/15 16:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:29:55 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> emacs is pretty good, although even it is capable of typing what it thinks > >> you should type rather than the buttons you actually press. > > > > Well, for me that's a deal-breaker. I'm sick and tired of Web search > > engines that assume I can't spell or type, and which consequently show > > me 437,000,000 hits I don't want, but none of the hits I actually do > > want. Someone needs to develop a WYTIWYG search engine. > > I understand your reaction, but it shouldn't be a deal-breaker. > Any response that emacs exhibits can be customized (ie, by a > user) so that it doesn't occur. Someone might complain the > the barrier to modification is too high, and that might be > a fair reaction, but first I think they should try to see > what it takes to perform the customization. IME emacs does > have a few annoying behaviors, but these are comparatively > rare and they are easily turn-offable. > Customising an editor is a last resort. You want to be able to fire it up on any machine, and edit a file with it. Usually when you use an editor like emacs rather than a wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a scratch job - some stupid configuration file needs a tweak, or you want to knock up a quick script or C program to reformat some data or generate a procedural image.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 10:19 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <87bnfji9i7.fsf@rudiments.goosenet.in> |
| In reply to | #65216 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > Customising an editor is a last resort. You want to be able to fire > it up on any machine, and edit a file with it. Usually when you use an > editor like emacs rather than a wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a > scratch job - some stupid configuration file needs a tweak, or you > want to knock up a quick script or C program to reformat some data or > generate a procedural image. There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor and an environment is clear. -- Udyant Wig GitHub: https://github.com/udyant Poetry: http://www.writing.com/main/profile/biography/frosthrone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnzj32ti63.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65231 |
Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> Customising an editor is a last resort. You want to be able to fire >> it up on any machine, and edit a file with it. Usually when you use an >> editor like emacs rather than a wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a >> scratch job - some stupid configuration file needs a tweak, or you >> want to knock up a quick script or C program to reformat some data or >> generate a procedural image. > > There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is > not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or > platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor > and an environment is clear. Yes. A lot of people who don't use emacs don't get this, either the fact of it or how/why it is valuable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 18:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55a40834.16177562@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #65361 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes: > > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> Customising an editor is a last resort. You want to be able to fire > >> it up on any machine, and edit a file with it. Usually when you use an > >> editor like emacs rather than a wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a > >> scratch job - some stupid configuration file needs a tweak, or you > >> want to knock up a quick script or C program to reformat some data or > >> generate a procedural image. > > > > There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is > > not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or > > platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor > > and an environment is clear. > > Yes. A lot of people who don't use emacs don't get this, > either the fact of it or how/why it is valuable. And a lot of people who _do_ use Emacs don't get that this makes it unsuitable as a quick-shot, one-use, fire-and-forget editor. With Emacs, you _must_ immerse yourself fully, or it's as bad as vi. And most normal users simply don't have the time for that. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4ml5sa81.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65508 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> Udyant Wig <udyantw@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >>>> Customising an editor is a last resort. You want to be able to fire >>>> it up on any machine, and edit a file with it. Usually when you use an >>>> editor like emacs rather than a wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a >>>> scratch job - some stupid configuration file needs a tweak, or you >>>> want to knock up a quick script or C program to reformat some data or >>>> generate a procedural image. >>> >>> There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is >>> not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or >>> platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor >>> and an environment is clear. >> >> Yes. A lot of people who don't use emacs don't get this, >> either the fact of it or how/why it is valuable. > > And a lot of people who _do_ use Emacs don't get that this > makes it unsuitable as a quick-shot, one-use, fire-and-forget > editor. I understand this mode, and use it on occasion; but those occasions don't come up for me very often. > With Emacs, you _must_ immerse yourself fully, or it's as bad > as vi. Not sure what you mean by second part there.. don't vi/vim users think vi (or vim) is a good editor? (To be clear here I don't use either vi or vim (or gvim) enough to distinguish between them, so for me the terms are interchangeable.) > And most normal users simply don't have the time for that. When you say "normal users" do you mean all people who use computers, or just C software developers? In comp.lang.c it is only the latter group that I am concerned with.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-19 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55ac1640.5480687@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #65628 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > > With Emacs, you _must_ immerse yourself fully, or it's as bad > > as vi. > > Not sure what you mean by second part there.. don't vi/vim > users think vi (or vim) is a good editor? Yes, they do, the poor bastards. > > And most normal users simply don't have the time for that. > > When you say "normal users" do you mean all people who use > computers, or just C software developers? In comp.lang.c it > is only the latter group that I am concerned with. People who use editors. For most of these, IME, this is a recurring but minor part of their jobs - like changing oil in your car, something you want to know how to do but also don't want to spend months learning how to do. You want to spend those months learning to drive, or use the computer for your main job. Changing oil, or editing the odd text file, is necessary but non-fundamental. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwpxun5e2.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65928 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: >> >>> With Emacs, you _must_ immerse yourself fully, or it's as bad >>> as vi. >> >> Not sure what you mean by second part there.. don't vi/vim >> users think vi (or vim) is a good editor? > > Yes, they do, the poor bastards. > >>> And most normal users simply don't have the time for that. >> >> When you say "normal users" do you mean all people who use >> computers, or just C software developers? In comp.lang.c it >> is only the latter group that I am concerned with. > > People who use editors. For most of these, IME, this is a recurring but > minor part of their jobs - like changing oil in your car, something you > want to know how to do but also don't want to spend months learning how > to do. You want to spend those months learning to drive, or use the > computer for your main job. Changing oil, or editing the odd text file, > is necessary but non-fundamental. Oh that. AFAIK people in that category aren't working on "files", they are working on "documents". Of course one shouldn't use an editor to change a document. I wouldn't advocate using emacs to such a person - in fact even the concept of "editing a file" might produce nothing more than a blank stare. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 20:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Pdiox.190624$GA1.41060@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #65231 |
On 7/11/15 12:49 AM, Udyant Wig wrote: > There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is > not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or > platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor > and an environment is clear. > Hasn't it been said of Emacs, that "Emacs could be considered a full operating system, the main thing it is missing is a simple text editor."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 18:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dc10799-55aa-4a26-b01f-300520f2c9d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65372 |
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 1:08:24 AM UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/11/15 12:49 AM, Udyant Wig wrote: > > > There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is > > not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or > > platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor > > and an environment is clear. > > > > Hasn't it been said of Emacs, that "Emacs could be considered a full > operating system, the main thing it is missing is a simple text editor." > It's not a text editor. More a way of life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnzj2xqvlw.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65372 |
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: > On 7/11/15 12:49 AM, Udyant Wig wrote: > >> There is a common misconception that Emacs is _just_ an editor. It is >> not. It would better be described as a text-editing environment or >> platform. The sheer difference in conceptual scope between an editor >> and an environment is clear. > > Hasn't it been said of Emacs, that "Emacs could be considered a full > operating system, the main thing it is missing is a simple text > editor." But emacs does have a simple text editor -- just ESC x vi-mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 15:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4mlauwtn.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65216 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 1:53:25 AM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 18/06/15 16:26, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 3:29:55 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> emacs is pretty good, although even it is capable of typing what it thinks >>>> you should type rather than the buttons you actually press. >>> >>> Well, for me that's a deal-breaker. I'm sick and tired of Web search >>> engines that assume I can't spell or type, and which consequently show >>> me 437,000,000 hits I don't want, but none of the hits I actually do >>> want. Someone needs to develop a WYTIWYG search engine. >> >> I understand your reaction, but it shouldn't be a deal-breaker. >> Any response that emacs exhibits can be customized (ie, by a >> user) so that it doesn't occur. Someone might complain the >> the barrier to modification is too high, and that might be >> a fair reaction, but first I think they should try to see >> what it takes to perform the customization. IME emacs does >> have a few annoying behaviors, but these are comparatively >> rare and they are easily turn-offable. > > Customising an editor is a last resort. A rather narrow-minded and unenlightened viewpoint. > You want to be able to fire it up on any machine, and edit a file > with it. Usually when you use an editor like emacs rather than a > wordprocessor or an IDE it's for a scratch job - some stupid > configuration file needs a tweak, or you want to knock up a quick > script or C program to reformat some data or generate a procedural > image. You are, as you often do, confusing what you want with what other people want. And I have to tell you, it is f****** annoying. Please stop it. As for what _I_ want, I regularly use emacs to edit files on remote machines whose file systems are not mounted locally. I don't need emacs to run everywhere. I don't "fire emacs up" in order to edit a file - I routinely run it immediately after logging in, and simply leave it running. The emacs process I am typing this message into has been up more than a month, and that is actually fairly short as my emacs process lifetimes go. So your model for how editors are used has very little to do with how I use emacs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96068f0a-49c6-4f57-b497-41b798f0b2b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65360 |
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 11:57:33 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > > Customising an editor is a last resort. > > A rather narrow-minded and unenlightened viewpoint. > No, it's fundamental to bad software design. Most programs inherently have a lot of essentially arbitrary settings, for which there isn't a clear convention. The trick of good design is to set these settings so that they match the conventions, and are usable. That's hard, so lazy programmers who don't know anything about ergonomics typically put in options. So users waste a lot of time setting the options, not knowing how to unset them, wondering why the program doesn't behave as it ought (because the wrong options are set). Technical support desks despair, often it's necessary to set all the configurations to some known value before any support can be given. Customisation should be rare. Things need to work as is, out of the box. I don't have time to fiddle with text editors on every computer I use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 15:51 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d0e6i1Fmf76U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65366 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Customisation should be rare. Things need to work as is, out > of the box. I don't have time to fiddle with text editors on > every computer I use. For who's definition of "work"? So you would only consider a text editor that defaults to your code layout rules? -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <107ff928-4091-4eb2-b75b-f4117d5e34d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65392 |
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 4:51:43 AM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > Customisation should be rare. Things need to work as is, out > > of the box. I don't have time to fiddle with text editors on > > every computer I use. > > For who's definition of "work"? > > So you would only consider a text editor that defaults to your code > layout rules? > The premise of a text editor is that you enter keystrokes, and it echoes them to the screen and ultimately the file you are editing. If it does this, I'm happy. I'm quite capable of pressing a space when I want an indentation and a return when I want a newline, and closing braces and parentheses when I want them to be balanced. In my current job I've been asked to make every if statement control a block rather than a single line. So I achieve that by pressing the requisite keys. I don't set up the editor to enforce the style, and it would be a nuisance when I work on private code which isn't written with that convention - partly because I tend to avoid ? :, my preferred style makes heavy use of one line ifs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 21:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87d1zxoz23.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65406 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 4:51:43 AM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: >> Malcolm McLean wrote: >> > >> > Customisation should be rare. Things need to work as is, out >> > of the box. I don't have time to fiddle with text editors on >> > every computer I use. >> >> For who's definition of "work"? >> >> So you would only consider a text editor that defaults to your code >> layout rules? >> > The premise of a text editor is that you enter keystrokes, and it > echoes them to the screen and ultimately the file you are editing. > > If it does this, I'm happy. "ed" does that -- heck, so does "cat" -- but I'd give good odds that you don't use something like ed for all your editing needs. You probably mean "basic visual text input and deletion, paging up and down, a few cursor movement commands and maybe a search function or two..." and you are stretching the point for argumentative reasons. Anyway, your needs are limited so presumably you've found such a tool and I am happy for you. Can you not just accept that others have found tools that suit their needs, and stop telling the world that editors should be as you want them to be? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnum4f$36u$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #65454 |
In article <87d1zxoz23.fsf@bsb.me.uk>,
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
...
>Anyway, your needs are limited so presumably you've found such a tool
>and I am happy for you. Can you not just accept that others have found
>tools that suit their needs, and stop telling the world that editors
>should be as you want them to be?
Why are you so threatened?
--
"I think I understand delicate, but why do I have to wash my hands, and
be standing in cold water when doing it?"
Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> in comp.lang.c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 10:00 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d0g6bkFmf76U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #65406 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 4:51:43 AM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: >> Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>> Customisation should be rare. Things need to work as is, out >>> of the box. I don't have time to fiddle with text editors on >>> every computer I use. >> >> For who's definition of "work"? >> >> So you would only consider a text editor that defaults to your code >> layout rules? >> > The premise of a text editor is that you enter keystrokes, and it > echoes them to the screen and ultimately the file you are editing. > > If it does this, I'm happy. I'm quite capable of pressing a space > when I want an indentation and a return when I want a newline, > and closing braces and parentheses when I want them to be balanced. I hope your medical insurance covers RSI... > In my current job I've been asked to make every if statement > control a block rather than a single line. So I achieve that > by pressing the requisite keys. I don't set up the editor to > enforce the style, and it would be a nuisance when I work on > private code which isn't written with that convention - partly > because I tend to avoid ? :, my preferred style makes heavy use > of one line ifs. So pick a decent editor that allows you to associate styles with projects. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-13 04:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ef3c389-35b5-4017-a458-6de76b81bc17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #65461 |
On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 11:00:31 PM UTC+1, Ian Collins wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > In my current job I've been asked to make every if statement > > control a block rather than a single line. So I achieve that > > by pressing the requisite keys. I don't set up the editor to > > enforce the style, and it would be a nuisance when I work on > > private code which isn't written with that convention - partly > > because I tend to avoid ? :, my preferred style makes heavy use > > of one line ifs. > > So pick a decent editor that allows you to associate styles with projects. > I don't have time to fiddle about with text editors playing with options for associating settings with projects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web