Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #172868 > unrolled thread

A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-09-27 22:40 +0200
    Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 23:30 +0200
      Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Tony Baldwin <tonybaldwin@gmx.com> - 2016-09-27 23:40 +0200
        Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 05:10 +0200
        Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:10 +0200
          Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-09-29 17:10 +0200
      Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-09-28 01:00 +0200
    Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? davidson@freevolt.org - 2016-09-28 01:10 +0200
      Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-09-28 02:20 +0200
        Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? davidson@freevolt.org - 2016-09-28 02:40 +0200
    Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 17:20 +0200
      Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Bob Bernstein <poobah@ruptured-duck.com> - 2016-09-30 18:00 +0200
        Re: A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-30 20:10 +0200

#172868 — A psgmlx that plays nice with emacs24?

I think (hope) the subject says it all.

-- 
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#172870

On Tue 27 Sep 2016 at 16:35:44 -0400, Bob Bernstein wrote:

> I think (hope) the subject says it all.

It does: it says - I cannot be bothered to explain in any way what I
want. But I am relying on everyone to read my mind and realise how
important this is to me. Guesses are accepted as responses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172871

On 09/27/2016 05:19 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Tue 27 Sep 2016 at 16:35:44 -0400, Bob Bernstein wrote:
>
>> I think (hope) the subject says it all.
>
> It does: it says - I cannot be bothered to explain in any way what I
> want. But I am relying on everyone to read my mind and realise how
> important this is to me. Guesses are accepted as responses.

Then perhaps my first reaction won't be as inflammatory as I'd initially 
thought.
MY first thought was,"
Emacs?! People still use the crusty old thing?
Perhaps he consider dumping that monstrosity and joining the rest of us 
in the 21st Century, and upgrade to a modern OS with a proper editor, 
such as Debian 8/Jessie with Vim!"

:-p
Ok...Getting my coat now...
>

./tony
-- 
http://tonybaldwin.me
all tony, all the time

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172881

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tony Baldwin <tonybaldwin@gmx.com> wrote:
> MY first thought was,"
> Emacs?! People still use the crusty old thing?
> Perhaps he consider dumping that monstrosity and joining the rest of us in
> the 21st Century, and upgrade to a modern OS with a proper editor, such as
> Debian 8/Jessie with Vim!"
>

Yes. People use Emacs. There is no one solution that fits all. You can
check this for yourself by reading the statistics from popcon[1] or by

% apt-cache search --names-only "^vim$"  | grep -v "vim-" | popsort.py
1210 vim - Vi IMproved - enhanced vi editor

% apt-cache search --names-only "^emacs$" | popsort.py
3216 emacs - GNU Emacs editor (metapackage)

which shows that both editors are equally popular but vim a bit more
(rank of 1210 vs 3216).

Appendix:
[1] - http://popcon.debian.org/by_inst
[2] - popsort.py is a python script I wrote to get the popularity
rank. It can be downloaded from
https://gitlab.com/d3k2mk7/rutils/blob/master/bin/popsort.py .

thanks
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172909

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 27 September 2016 at 23:34, Tony Baldwin <tonybaldwin@gmx.com> wrote:

>
> Emacs?! People still use the crusty old thing?
> Perhaps he consider dumping that monstrosity and joining the rest of us in
> the 21st Century, and upgrade to a modern OS with a proper editor, such as
> Debian 8/Jessie with Vim!"
>
>
Why so narrow-minded to choose only one of the two?  I use both: Emacs for
programming, org-mode and LaTeX  and vim for editing config-files or very
large text files.

Sometimes I even use vim to edit ~/.emacs :)

Regards
Johann
-- 
Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
my lips will praise you.  (Psalm 63:3)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172938

Johann Spies <johann.spies@gmail.com> writes:

> On 27 September 2016 at 23:34, Tony Baldwin <tonybaldwin@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>     
>     
>     
>     Emacs?! People still use the crusty old thing?
>     Perhaps he consider dumping that monstrosity and joining the rest
>     of us in the 21st Century, and upgrade to a modern OS with a
>     proper editor, such as Debian 8/Jessie with Vim!"
>     
>     
>
> Why so narrow-minded to choose only one of the two? I use both: Emacs
> for programming, org-mode and LaTeX and vim for editing config-files
> or very large text files.
>
> Sometimes I even use vim to edit ~/.emacs :) 

I suspect the post was intended humorously.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172875

Oops. Back in the killfile for Master Brian. <plonk>

-- 
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172876

Hi Bob.

A few meta-suggestions are below.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Bob Bernstein wrote:

> I think (hope) the subject says it all.

Your RELEASE: You have left unsaid what version of debian you are
using. Jessie?  Wheezy?  Something else? Something else not debian?
This matters.

Your GOAL: You have left quite mysterious what it is you are trying to
do with psgmlx. (It may be obvious to you, but it may well not be to
anyone inclined or able to help you.) This also matters. And no,
"Trying to use this renowned, non-debian package with emacs24" is not
a good answer.

Things you have TRIED/INVESTIGATED: Whether you have considered using
(or tried), for example, psgml. Whether psgml is insufficient for your
needs (again: what are those?). Whether you are concerned that its
official homepage has not been updated in over a decade, etc.

FWIW, I found these pages interesting to read:

  https://packages.debian.org/jessie/psgml
  https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/XmlModes

Finally, AFAICT, psgmlx is not a debian package at all. The question
therefore arises: *Why* would you assume that your subject line says
it all, on this listserv?  (That last question was rhetorical. No need
to clutter your reply with an answer to it, unless in fact psgmlx *is*
a debian package and I require correction on that score.)

Hope this helps.

BTW: Kill-filing Brian? Damn, dude. Stop aiming at your own foot when
you shoot. It hurts to watch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172878

Oh Lord I don't have time for this.

Look, I thought I'd take a shot in the dark to see if just maybe 
someone who knew what psgmlx was might see my Subject: and drop 
into help mode instead of wounded pride mode: "That Bernstein 
fellow hurt my feelings because he asked about something about 
which I am completely ignorant. He is a bad person."

...goddamn touchy prima-donnas. Get over yourselves.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

-- 
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172879

Hi Bob.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Bob Bernstein wrote:

> Oh Lord I don't have time for this.

Neither do some others, and understandably so.

But it happens I do, at the moment.

> Look, I thought I'd take a shot in the dark to see if just maybe
> someone who knew what psgmlx was might see my Subject: and drop into
> help mode [...]

Um, there is something you do not seem to realise. Allow me to explain it to you.

This list is archived on the web, and many contributors to threads
here do so with the expectation that their replies will help not only
the OP, but potentially many other users as well, not all of whom are
currently subscribed to the list.

If OPs provide certain basic information,

  1. their thread is far more likely to turn up in web searches.

  2. it saves a lot of time on the part of those able to help.

  3. it saves a lot of time on the part of others searching for
  solutions to similar problems.

> [...] instead of wounded pride mode: "That Bernstein fellow hurt my
> feelings because he asked about something about which I am
> completely ignorant. He is a bad person."

My previous message explained some listserv norms, to help you conform
to the prescribed norms of this list. And just now (above), I have
explained some of the rationale for those norms.

Violation of norms, in any group, will receive various sorts
responses. Some more patient than others.

I suspect the only feelings that have been wounded here are your own.

> ...goddamn touchy prima-donnas. Get over yourselves.

Sigh. When the penny drops, you will feel quite foolish.

Good luck with your project.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172981

> I think (hope) the subject says it all.

Not really.  Which version of psgmlx are you using?
What problem(s) did you encounter with it?


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172991

On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> Not really.  Which version of psgmlx are you using?
> What problem(s) did you encounter with it?

Most of the details are on the deb-doc list now. Basically, 
emacs24 can't handle the old elisp in psgmlx, hence my need for 
an older version of emacs.

psgmlx afaik hasn't been updated for years. The version is 
0.5.3. Note this is not the psgml package.

All best,

-- 
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172995

>> Not really.  Which version of psgmlx are you using?
>> What problem(s) did you encounter with it?
> Most of the details are on the deb-doc list now.  Basically, emacs24 can't
> handle the old elisp in psgmlx, hence my need for an older version of emacs.

This "hence" is a bit hasty.  Myself, I would have said "hence my need
for an newer version of psgmlx".

> psgmlx afaik hasn't been updated for years. The version is 0.5.3.

duckduckgo can't find it.  Any hint where it comes from?


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web