Dave's difficulties with manual activities
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Symbol reader macros
Next: Read CSV in SBCL
From: Turgut Durduran on 11 Sep 2009 02:52 On 2009-09-11, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Turgut Durduran wrote: >> On 2009-09-10, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>> What you say is, in its own terms, true, but we don't accept these terms. >>> Tough. Objective ones are the only terms I'm offering. >> >> "objective"? I never seen you give the list of standards or a methodology >> to judge them. > > Then perhaps you ought to reread the thread. You never gave the list of standards in the thread. Go for it. Give it to us. >>> Any key sequence is the equal of any other key sequence that's no >>> longer, so the only way they can be "essential to emacs" in a way that >>> is damaged by simply moving one or two of them away from keys like >>> control-C that are supposed to do something else is if it is "essential >>> to emacs" that users struggle with its interface and have problems with >>> simple actions like cut, copy, and paste. >> >> Why should I use non-standard things like control-C in my text-editor >> when it matches how everything else works? > > Huh? Control-C for copy is quite standard. Text editors that bind > control-C to copy comprise 99.99%+ of the text-editor market share. It > doesn't get much more defacto standard than that. You defined "standard" as how everything else that I use behaves so I am not surprised when changing between software etc. I go by that standard. > As for dejure, there's > a written CUA standards document out there somewhere. I am sure there is. You are the one claiming above that you have produced them. Go for it. ugdc
From: David Kastrup on 11 Sep 2009 03:53 Evan I <tali713(a)nospam.yahoo.evar.com> writes: > So yes, I too am very much an elitest, and I am using an elite tool > designed for other elite people like me. And there are enough of us > to guarantee it's longevity, since it can be maintained and updated as > long as there is a single user that uses it. Actually no, since its many parts are not completely separable, and so a minuscule number of maintainers will likely cause bit rot to occur. To some degree I see that happening with XEmacs. > And there are far far more of us that that. Yes. And the current maintainer team is doing a good job of shaping up and integrating the work of contributors. -- David Kastrup
From: Alan Mackenzie on 11 Sep 2009 05:39 In comp.emacs Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Andrea Crotti wrote: >> I still don't get why so much anger against emacs, are you maybe >> forced to use it? > Anger? What anger? The only anger I have is some anger at people feeling > they can't address my arguments logically and consequently resorting to > personal attacks. Consider the possibility that there's something about your posts that provokes these alleged "personal attacks". > I don't like being badmouthed, and I doubly don't like being badmouthed > in public. Yet in this thread you have yourself badmouthed. One of the several things you have badmouthed in particular has been the Emacs manual. > But I do try to remain rational and not stoop to that level myself in > my rebuttals. You might well be trying (and believe me, you are), but you're not succeeding at it. Your posting technique might well be described as the "foghorn" technique: blare out loudly and repeatedly, and not engage with the replies. A normal human convention is that people listen to each other respectfully, and learn from each other. You haven't been doing this in this thread. Also, the way you post is indistinguishable from that of a troll. Is it not reasonable thus to conclude that you are indeed a troll? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
From: Alan Mackenzie on 11 Sep 2009 06:58 In comp.emacs Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > I will take that as your conceding that you still don't have a logical > argument against what I've said. You know, if you were using Emacs, you could bind that string to a key sequence, and that would save you a _lot_ of time. ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
From: John Thingstad on 11 Sep 2009 10:44
På Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:11:19 +0200, skrev Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk>: > John Thingstad wrote: >> På Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:03:39 +0200, skrev Dave Searles >> <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk>: >> This drivel [rest deleted unread] > > I will take that as your conceding that you still don't have a logical > argument against what I've said. The reason would be that it easier to write a whole new editor than change it in the manner you suggested. There is some 1000 modes that require things to work the way they do now. If you were to, say, remove the minibuffer which you seem to hate, it breaks everything. Similarly C-C is bound to made specific commands. So changing it wrecks havoc with all mode specific commands. That is why it is irrelevant drivel. You want it to be something it isn't, and never will be. As I said. You snipped out my recommendation of ultraedit. I take it you prefer to gripe, when in the 1000 of editors in existence surely the must be one more to your taste. --------------------- John Thingstad |