Xref: utzoo comp.lang.forth:1825 comp.editors:1255
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth,comp.editors
Subject: Re: Forth window system interface
Message-ID: <QZ.I.Bggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 9 Jan 90 13:04:53 GMT
References: <9001090114.AA24584@jade.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Followup-To: comp.editors
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 9

> Please, no!  Aaaaargh!  vi has the most baroque command syntax of any
> screen editor I know.  Let's not do anything to propagate it!

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 <count>command<range>, 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.
-- 
 _--_|\  Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>
\_.--._/
      v  "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'