🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <22712.9105271104@seq.hull.ac.uk> sm2@sequent.cc.hull.ac.uk (Simon
 Marshall) writes:
>
>     Since we get postings a good few days after everyone in the US,
>     some of this may seem dated, but I'm sorry, I'm not going to get
>     flamed by someone who asks for help in gnu.emacs.help & then slags
>     off GNU & Emacs because of ignorance.  I have seen a demolishment by
>     Joe Wells (jbw@bigbird.bu.edu), so I'll try not to repeat his points.
>
>Joshi@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi) writes:
>
>| There is definitely a point or two that can be incorporated into emacs from

>| the IBM mainframe world.
>
>     Ahhh!  Now we have it!  An IBM user!
>
>| 1. Exclusion (different from emacs' narrow-region). This allows for multiple
>| regions.
>
>     I'm not sure what you mean, are you aware of outline-mode?
>

I have seen numerous posts in this and related newsgroups suggesting
outline-mode as an equivalent to IBM's XEDIT set select/set display/set scope
commands. IMHO, it fails.

Lines excluded from display may also be excluded from all editor operations
(except file save).  This allows one to select a set of lines by regexp
match, see all the selected lines, operate on them (global replace, kill,
copy, etc), and then get the whole file back.  This process is very easy to
invoke.  I'm sure that this can be done in emacs, but outline-mode doesn't
do it.

BTW, the selection of lines is not purely binary.  Each line has an integer,
the select level, assigned to it.  Lines with select level equal to display
level (or between display levels n1 and n2) are displayed.  Edit operations
are on displayed lines only or on all lines depending on the setting of
scope.  Select levels of lines may be set absolutely or may be incremented
or decremented.


>
>| 3. Shell language and the editor macro language are completely integrated.
>| They are the same. (REXX for VM and TSO/E Clist for ISPF).
>
>     They are also inappropriate for an editor extension language.
>     Have a look at some *.el files, to see what I mean - try re-writing
>     them in sh syntax.
>

I wouldn't call REXX a shell.  It's a procedural language with some very
nice features, including some good regexp stuff.  Substantial portions of
XEDIT are implemented in REXX as "XEDIT macros" (functions in emacs).  I
think that elisp is a better language for implementing an editor - more of
emacs is elisp than XEDIT is REXX, but REXX is VERY MUCH EASIER for a
non-lisper to use to write one-shot functions that are smarter than emacs'
macros.

Maybe we should encourage high schools to teach lisp?

Jeff
--
Jeff Dwork			|  408-749-2356 	|  dwork@AMD.COM
Advanced Micro Devices, M/S 45	|---------------------------------------
PO Box 3453			|  The above opionions are mine,
Sunnyvale, Ca 94088		|  not AMD's.