Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!iuvax!pur-ee!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!lawdm
From: lawdm@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Dan Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Which microemacs?
Summary: uEMACS GNU
Keywords: uEMACS GNU
Message-ID: <7701@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 90 14:34:39 GMT
Reply-To: dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu (Daniel Lawrence)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 24

In article <2472@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> piet@cs.ruu.nl (Piet van Oostrum) writes:
>I have been using micrognuemacs (MG2a) on my Atari. I use GNU emacs on
>Unix. There is also microemacs 3.10. 

>Question: has anybody compared microemacs 3.10 with MG2a? I like an editor
>on my Atari that is compatible with GNU emacs (i.e. the same keystroke
>shouldn't do something different), but does not need the full
>functionality. The GNU emacs port to the Atari is too big for me.

	Editors are indeed quite a religious subject.  As such I won't
bore anyone by attempting any such comparision.  However it has occured
to me that the reason MicroEMACS 3.10's default user interface is
different from GNU emacs is simply my unfamiliarity with GNU (I have
never owned a machine large enough to run it).  Would there be any GNU
users out there that would be interested in writting an alternative user
interface for MicroEMACS 3.10 to make it work like GNU?  I am fairly
certain that the macro language is up to it, and if there is any place
it is not, I can upgrade it.


			Daniel Lawrence  voice: (317) 742-5153
					  arpa:	dan@midas.mgmt.purdue.edu
				The Programmer's Room 
				Fido: 1:201/10 - (317) 742-5533