Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!hammer!jockc From: jockc@hammer.idsila.com (Jock Cooper) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: Shutdown: EMACS vs. vi Message-ID: Date: 3 Jun 91 18:46:36 GMT Article-I.D.: hammer.JOCKC.91Jun3114636 References: <1991Jun2.075649.3512@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com> Sender: news@hammer.UUCP Organization: Int'l Digital Scientific, Inc. Lines: 29 In-reply-to: melling@cs.psu.edu's message of 3 Jun 91 00:09:59 GMT In article melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) writes: In article <1991Jun02.184943.8202@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >programmer. I don't wont to write "what-line" (9 keystrokes). 10 or 11, actually, counting the M-X. I get 9 too. M-x whal. You could bind that to a key if you frequently use it. I have bound C-x C-l to goto-line, and I use C-x l for count-lines-page(I don't use that often). That's always annoyed me about gnumacs as well, but I haven't taken the time to fix it. Microemacs, for example, gives you that information with the buffer-position function, which is bound by default to C-X= (two keystrokes). I believe that Unipress's does as well. It's a simply fix to rebind any key. Would you really use another editor that doesn't have an undo or autosave just because you don't like one or two key bindings in GNU Emacs? Sorry about coming in on the middle of this discussion, but I had to say that in addition to undo and autosave, I find the ability to do multiple buffer, multiple file, and multiple window editing indispensible. As a programmer, I tend to edit about 3 headers and 3 source files simultaneously. This alone makes emacs worth using. Sure it's a pain to have to write startup files to rebind keys to commonly used functions, but jeez, you only gotta do it one time. jockc@hammer.idsila.com