Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!bsu-cs!neubauer
From: neubauer@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: why do editors "shrink-wrap" the text?
Message-ID: <6579@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 89 15:08:43 GMT
References: <10088@megaron.arizona.edu> <11542@lanl.gov>
Reply-To: neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer)
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 39

In article <11542@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>From article <10088@megaron.arizona.edu>, by mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin):
>> Yes.  (Any question of the form "does gnuemacs have ..." has the
>> answer "yes" ;-)  Try picture-mode.  You can even change the default
>
>I'm not sure your parenthetical is true.  I want an editor in which the
>carriage return key is _only_ a cursor positioning key.  No matter what
>'mode' the editor is in, I want the carriage control key to put the
>cursor at the beginning of the next line - and _most_especially_NOT_
>insert a new line or split the line I was on!  In other words, I want
>the carriage control key to behave exactly as it does on a dumb mechanical
>typewriter (even in 'insert mode').  Does gnuemacs do that (without me
>having to rewrite the keyboard driver or assign a macro to the carriage
>return key or something)?

Sure you can do that easily.  The point that many posters have made here
recently is that an editor is a VERY personal tool.  You want the return key
to have a particular behavior.  I find that particular behavior very
irritating when I encounter it.  I therefore want an editor that I can
(without unreasonable effort) customize to my own preferences.  Rebinding
the return key is no big deal.  Why do you seem to assume that GNU Emacs
ought to conform to your preferences by default?  My observation is that
comparatively few people happen to want that return key behavior.  I could
very well be wrong and if I am, then there is almost certainly someone
around who has exactly what you want and can send it to you, and if I am
right, then you may have to do it yourself.  (Which should not be more than
a couple of lines added to your .emacs file.)  One of the characteristic
features of Emacs is precisely the fact that not only can it be customized,
but its philosophy actively encourages you to customize it to suit
yourself.  Emacs is not alone in this, but it (and RMS) are certainly up
toward the head of the pack.  I admit that LISP is rather more different
from the languages that most people use than TPU, for example, but so what?
If you want to use it you will.  Please don't anybody flame RMS for doing
the service he has just because you would rather he had done something
differently.  No two people seem to really agree on everything anyway.

-- 
Paul Neubauer         neubauer@bsu-cs.bsu.edu        neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP
                      <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!neubauer