🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <990@mako.UUCP> jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) writes:
>Take, for instance, Richard Stallman's GNU emacs.  It is best known as a
>WYSIWYG text editor, however, it also has a text-manipulation language
>and...

Part of the problem is that a lot of people use different meaning for the
words. Emacs is not a WYSIWYG editor. It is a display editor. It happens to
be a programmable display editor, which is where the fuzziness comes from. I
don't think that any editor that cannot display and manipulate multiple
fonts in multiple sizes ought to be called a WYSIWYG editor for the purposes
of this discussion. I use Emacs to edit my Scribe source files because I
like the way that Emacs keeps the paragraphs on my screen justified, but
what I see on my screen bears no resemblance to what I am going to get when
I print it.

I claim, by the way, that it is an intrinsic contradiction for WYSIWYG
formatters and compiled formatters to co-exist. At least as I am arguing
them, the coexistence is a meaningless concept. If I find the energy and the
time soon I will post an explanation as to why this is so.
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA