🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <930725.220041-0400@MReXX-0.18>, "F. Scott Ophof" <Ophof@CS.UWINDSOR.CA> wrote:
>Being used to XEDIT, I tried, but can't dredge up any (real)
>problems.  Could you expand on the areas where you feel XEDIT (and
>maybe its sisters) could use improvement?

I think Jack was referring to the distinct lack of support for text like
this.  "Powerinp" is ok but not brilliant, and there is no built-in support
for reformatting a paragraph when you have messed it up by deleting or
inserting something.  However, given a few macros things can be greatly
improved.

>>[Aside: some time ago when I was feeling a bit silly, I wrote an xedit subset
>>for my Sinclair ZX Spectrum.
>By Jove!  XEDIT on a Sinclair?!?  ;-)

No, not "jove".  XEDIT. :-)  But yes, I did.

>The SI macro (at least its equiv. in the sisters) however combines
>the good parts of POWERINP with availability of key-linked commands.

Um, the thing about "Powerinp" is that you type away and it then breaks the
text into words.  SI is an enhanced version of "Input", not "Powerinp".

>>However, I always just used to press PF2 to add an extra line.  This key was
>>defined to a macro which did such things as making sure the new line is on
>>the screen and placing the cursor under the first nonblank character in the
>>previous line.

>Isn't this effectively the SI macro?

It's similar, and that's probably why I never used SI (so I don't know
what it does, exactly).  However, it's slightly different as my method is
modeless whereas SI can be viewed as a sort of mode that you have to enter
by typing "SI" and exit by entering a null line.

Ian Collier
Ian.Collier@prg.ox.ac.uk | imc@ecs.ox.ac.uk