On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Rich Alderson <RichA at vulcan.com> wrote:
From: Liam Proven
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:47 PM
What I'd /really/ like as a writing tool
would be a CUA mode for
EMACS. I find its native UI bizarre and incomprehensible - if I have
to edit text at a Unix prompt, I use Vi, badly - but reading comments
like Neal Stephenson's in /In The Beginning Was The Command Line/
<http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html> make me think it might
be the ultimate writers' tool. I'm damned if I'm learning another new
set of keybindings [a] at my age and [b] in a world where CUA has
killed off everything else and now rules the GUI world.
You're apparently in luck. ?Starting with release 22.1, GNU Emacs includes
a cua-mode with appropriate keybindings, so that you don't have to do them
all yourself. ?(One of the beauties of the entire EMACS family of editors
is that you *can* do anything you want with key bindings. ?You don't have
to accept the defaults.)
While I instantly defer, I didn't learn it way back when. I learned
the weird Sinclair BASIC editor first, then Edlin, then a maze of
twisty little DOS wordprocessors, all alike, then RPED on Amstrad
CP/M, then the frankly bizarre Acorn dual-cursor text editor, and
finally I switched to Windows, at which point, sanity broke out.
Basically, and I realise this probably sounds very silly and strange
and odd to a Unix or Emacs veteran, I want it to look and work pretty
much like (say) MS-DOS Edit - but when you hit the limits of that
program and its functionality, you get all the extra Emacs power
opening up before you.
But menu bar, movable resizable sub-windows, dialog boxes, etc., all
in text mode and keyboard operated.
I found a Linux text editor I /really/ liked a few years back, but the
author is not maintaining it and it doesn't work properly on modern
Linuxes. It's called SETedit.
http://setedit.sourceforge.net/
It probably looks like a dog's breakfast to Unixy types, but to my
PC-permeated mind, this is what a text-mode PC text editor /should/
look like. :?)
Emacs could, I am sure, provide this functionality without breaking
sweat. The thing is, I suspect Emacs types don't see the point.
I am not fussed about X.11 - there are numerous X.11 editors that are
just fine. However, for me personally, I am crippled if I am stuck in
a terminal window. I can use Vi for the very basics, but I have never
worked out how to search and replace, or cut & paste, under it, in
some 22 years of usage. I don't care for it at all; I can just about
endure it.
--
Liam Proven ? Info & profile:
http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at
gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven ? MSN: lproven at
hotmail.com ? ICQ: 73187508