🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10559@yunexus.UUCP>, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
| In article <1990Apr27.193227.930@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> chet@po.CWRU.Edu writes:
| >It seems to me that Rob does not argue against extensibility in general,
| >but rather for the `tools approach'.  Things are extensible, but they are
| >`environmentally extensible'. [1]
| 
| Yes, that is *the* crucial point. [and the reason why I brought him into
| my posting].

Any tool that can act like a filter should follow that paradigm
because it is extremely useful (yes ... and extensible.) No one would
argue that. 

But gnu emacs is extremely useful in its current form. If you are
looking for an editor filter, then check sed or (g)awk out.  They do
that job very well.

| >Besides, GNU Emacs is a lifestyle :-)
| 
| So I'm told. It is worthwhile to contrast that against [1], and see
| if anything is wrong with the picture.

Nothing is wrong with the picture. Mastering filters and gnu emacs
gives one a range of tools with which to attack almost any text
manipulation problem. I would not want to do without either one. And I
would not want to convert either one to conform to the other's
operational model.
-- 
Kim Letkeman    uunet!mitel!spock!kim