Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: query re: text scrolling in windows; text mode
Message-ID: <1046@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 16:18:33 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1046
Posted: Tue Feb 10 16:18:33 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Feb-87 19:42:42 EST
References: <870208210354.251475@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA>
Reply-To: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center
Lines: 36

In article <bleh@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA> Peck@RADC-MULTICS.ARPA (Rodney) writes:
>
>  The reason I have found for not scrolling the text in windows is that
>the GEM system doesn't support text very well.
...
>  According to _Programmer's Guide to GEM_ by Balma and Fitler, sez on
>page 180:
>  "It' importaint to note that GEM is very weak on text processing
>functions: that is, functions which display blocks of text and manage
>selection, insertion, and deletion of this text.  Apple's Macintosh, for
>example. provides Text Edit Record functions to manipulate the entry,
>selections, and display of large chunks of text; these kinds of
>functions are not available from within GEM.  To develop a GEM word
>processing application, for example, you must provide your own functions
>to manage the display of blocks of text.  Discussion of the development
>of these functions is beyond the scope of this text."
>  Naturally, they don't say where to go to find a bigger scope either...

   How about starting with _Inside the MacIntosh_ (or whatever it's called)?
You can find it in two volumes on the shelves of your neighborhood chain
bookstore.

[What follows has no particular meaning:
   Now, I could have just stopped this message right here, but the news 
software won't let me post this short message because there is more included
text than new text.  I know, I could fool the well-written and robust 
check simply by changing all the '>'s above into some other character; but
that would be giving in, in a small way, to the those fools who don't seem
to know much about user psychology.  Will the new > included check actually
cut down new volume?  I doubt it; people will either pad out their short
messages with garbage (who, me? :-), or they'll change the '>' as noted
above.  Oh, I'm sure there'll be few people who actually realise that they
don't actually need to include the whole previous text, but I don't believe
it'll be a significant factor.
   There.  Was that enough?]
--