Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!romp!auschs!cello!sanders.austin.ibm.com From: sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) Newsgroups: comp.editors Subject: Re: Forth window system interface Message-ID: <3099@cello.UUCP> Date: 9 Jan 90 20:23:34 GMT Sender: news@cello.UUCP Reply-To: sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) Followup-To: alt.religion.computers Lines: 25 In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> Please, no! Aaaaargh! vi has the most baroque command syntax of any >> screen editor I know. Let's not do anything to propagate it! Thank you for that well thought out and thought provoking sediment[sic]. You are obviously well versed in the rhetoric of persuasion. :-) >While there are valid reasons to complain about VI, the command syntax is >not one of them. The limited macros, all the confusing shortcuts, and the >heavy line-orientation are problems. The command syntax, which is almost >universally command, is not. In fact, it's cleaner than the >comand structure of any other screen editor I've seen yet. Certainly it's >better than Emacs' ad-hockery. True. Sadly this syntax isn't more consistent within vi (like '~') but it's the exception rather than the rule. I would hope things would evolve towards being more internaly consistent. The use of "baroque" to describe a command syntax is kind of baroque in itself. Isn't it kind of neat the way that works. ` viva la vi -- guerre a outrance :-) -- sanders Reply-To: cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sanders.austin.ibm.com!sanders "He was arrested for contributing to the the misuse of the word engineer."