🚀 go-pugleaf

In <FRIEDMAN.92Jan15204341@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:

>In article <ROISE.92Jan15125924@sumax.seattleu.edu> roise@sumax.seattleu.edu (Linda Roise) writes:
>
>>Yikes!  I started to say, "It's not a text editor, it's a line
>>editor."  But of course, it is both.  I DID read the man page, though,
>>and find no reference to its being "the standard text editor."

>   Your man pages are inadequate, then.  Ed is the standard text editor,
>and it will always *be* the standard text editor.  The experience users
>know this already. 

Only if you define "inadequate" as not agreeing with this point of view.
Which has the odor of circular reasoning to me.  The man pages here
don't call ed the standard, but I find the man to be quite adequate,
thankyouverymuch.  :-)

>ED(1)               UNIX Programmer's Manual                ED(1)

>NAME
>     ed - text editor

>SYNOPSIS
>     ed [ - ] [ -x ] [ name ]

>DESCRIPTION
>     Ed is the standard text editor.

>     ...

ED(1)                    USER COMMANDS                      ED(1)

NAME
     ed, red - basic line editor

SYNOPSIS
     ed [ - ] [ -sx ] [ -p string ] [ filename ]

     red [ - ] [ -sx ] [ -p string ] [ filename ]

DESCRIPTION
     ed is the  most  basic  line  editor  of  the  UNIX  system.
     ...


EMACS(1)                 USER COMMANDS                   EMACS(1)

NAME
     emacs - the godlike editor.
...

Hmm, I _do_ wonder about these man pages sometimes, tho... ;-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't |   I figure the odds be fifty-fifty:
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | I just might have something to say. --FZ