Xref: utzoo comp.misc:5592 comp.editors:573 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!gaynor From: gaynor@athos.rutgers.edu (Silver) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.editors Subject: Re: UNIX needs a real text editor Message-ID: Date: 22 Mar 89 05:56:01 GMT References: <222@imspw6.UUCP> <252@torch.UUCP> <2112@mister-curious.sw.mcc.com> <743@stag.UUCP> <5620@cognos.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 > I would LOVE to see some good LANGUAGE SPECIFIC editors! There was quite a bit of discussion concerning such in this newsgroup something over year ago. Feel like consulting the archives? By the way, since the discussion, I think someone wrote a package for GNU Emacs to consult an incremental parser for the language you were editing, which supposedly did some interesting things. I never followed it up, but I point you to gnu.emacs and comp.emacs. > Text is just the method we use to describe the things we want the machine to > do. Agreed. In a similar vein, I am a screaming fanatic about defining executable objects of a language as first-order data in the language. I.e., that routines in the language are treated just like other data, and can be inspected, modified, etc. Lisp (functions are lambda expressions, which are lists formatted something like (lambda (arg-1 ... arg-N) body-form-1 ... body-form-M)), PostScript (routines are simply arrays marked executable), Prolog (every dang thing is an assertion, which can be asserted), and a few other languages support this idea. Regards, [Ag] gaynor@rutgers.edu