Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1231Re[2]: [jasspa] CUA support - update

Expand Messages
  • Steven Phillips
    Oct 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I largely agree with Bob but a GUI to some commands are definitely worthwhile,
      I regularly use user-setup, CVS tools, spell-buffer, buffer-setup, scheme-editor and
      (dare I say it) the help!

      Out of these only the spell dialog and CVS tools are for editing files,
      the rest I use for setting up ME itself. The main strength of ME is its suit
      of powerful key-driven tools which make editing files a lot quicker than using
      a mouse.

      To me it is more important that I get the same editor on all platforms, this
      generally avoids the frustration I get whenever I have to use word and the
      keys just done work! Also I don't think ME's OSD interface would lend itself
      to a X, Motif, MFC GUI interface, its very quirky and specific to ME so this
      would require a lot of work and for little gain.

      But I, too, get frustrated when using the dialogs as the keys are not as good
      as they could or should be. Improving these would help.


      > Subject: [jasspa] CUA support - update
      > From: Bob Paddock <yahoogroups@...>
      > Date: Saturday, October 16, 2004, 3:12:21 PM
      > To: jasspa@yahoogroups.com

      > On Saturday 16 October 2004 07:36 am, Jon Green wrote:

      >> Would standardizing the GUI key bindings be sufficient ?
      >> Should we consider a move to a native GUI for dialog boxes etc. ?
      >> a) Is all of this effort worth it ?

      > No.

      >> b) Would MicroEmacs become "BloatedMicroEmacs" or "MegaEmacs" ?

      > Yes. There are lots of Emacs variations out there. Keep MicroEmacs good at
      > what it is good at, being small, fast, and enduring.

      >> c) Would it be more frustrating to use ?

      > Probably. I'm usually using it when there is no GUI running yet.

      >> d) Would it make it more usable ?
      >> I guess the real basic questions I should be asking are:-
      >> Why do you use MicroEmacs ?
      >> What do you want as a user from MicroEmacs ?

      > I use NanoEmacs to bring up new systems, like Gentoo where they stick you
      > with that sucky 'nano' editor in the base boot system. *SMALL* and easy to
      > build is what it is all about at this point. Eventually as the system gets
      > father into the build process I bring up full MicroEmacs then the full
      > FSF/GNU Emacs.

      > NanoEmacs is small enough to stick in a RAM disk and not notice then
      > you end up with instant load times.

      >> d) Would it make it more usable ?

      > They one thing I would like to see is that in NE/ME that the key bindings that
      > are not already spoken for match those of FSF/GNU Emacs.

      > IE:
      > Meta-% gets Quire-Replace
      > Ctrl-SPACE sets the mark

      > Yes, it is easy enough to do myself in the config files but if their not
      > already used when not try to match FSF/GNU Emacs? Might get more converts
      > that way.
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic