Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!galaxy.rutgers.edu!sugra!ken
From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Xedit is better than vi and emacs
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.024928.2260@sugra.uucp>
Date: 26 Apr 91 02:49:28 GMT
References: <1991Apr21.011316.13111@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1991Apr24.180108.5887@convex.com>
Organization: Private computer - Bloomfield NJ USA
Lines: 25

In article <1991Apr24.180108.5887@convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
: From the keyboard of ken@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc):
: :This beats having to scroll through the definition every bloody
: :time you wonder what the args to this or another procedure were. 
: But it buys you little if you have multiple windows.
: --tom

Actually, multiple windows buys you little unless you either have only
one routine you refer to or you have a seperate window for each and
every function declaration (while I tend to have very busy windows,
this would be loony).  Also, with XEDIT, I could write a program to
automantically mask off the proper areas.  The only way I'm aware of
doing it with multiple windows is to manually open a seperate window
for each and every procedure, page down till you reach the individual
routines, and then shrink each window down till you have just the
declaration.  In a phrase, yuck.  And then, every time I want to see
a routine, I have to scan the screen and find the routine.  With
XEDIT, I just search backwards.  A "feature" of XEDIT is that text
that is hidden is not searched, its kind of useful, but it could be
hazardous if you don't remember you have text hidden.

-- 
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail.
"No problem, this is how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG