From: petcher@ds10.scri.fsu.edu (Don Petcher)
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Editor Keys
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:00:01 GMT
Reply-To: petcher@wuphys.wustl.edu (Donald N. Petcher)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Apr11.175022.18426@cs.unca.edu> mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan -- Genesis mailing list owner) writes:
>petcher@ds10.scri.fsu.edu (Don Petcher) writes:
>
>: I do agree with this, but in adopting precisely this philosophy in the
>: port of an editor from the Atari ST world (in that environment it makes
>: use of ctrl, alt, function keys in an efficient intuitive way) to Unix,
>: I am struggling with exactly how one should implement the philosophy. 
>: Alt, function and many control keys are of course not available.
>
>Which editor is this? I'm interested in it already...

The name of the eidtor is STedi in the Atari world. It was sold with a 
development package called Craft, consisting of the editor, a 99% 
compatible csh with extensions (command history editing,...) and support 
programs (99% -> no multitasking). Developed in Holland, sold chiefly in 
Holland and Germany. Never saw it marketed here.

The editor has now been ported to Unix, but as I mentioned earlier, the
key assignments are quite awkward in the initial version. Presently the
unix version is (in the mind of the author) somewhere between
proprietary and freeware (PD but retain rights), and I don't know where
it will ultimately end up. The first step I think is to make it feel
'right' under Unix (which is why I am soliciting help), and then decide
what to do with it. I think there is a good chance that the vanilla unix
version running in a vt100 window may be released but that is not yet
decided (that is my certainly vote. I think denying the world of this
editor is short of criminal :-). I will announce it here of course, when
it becomes clear.

As I said in my origianl post, I think it would make a good complement
to the two dominant editors, since its feel is more like TPU which to my
taste is quite different from either vi or emacs. However it is also
different from TPU in that the command language and the macro language
are the same, except for C-like extensions for branching and looping.
This makes it simpler to program. (Well, it IS a simpler editor in some
sense). Other features: it is a folding editor (using ascii embedded
text - to be set off as comments in a programming language), is small
and quick, has intelligent use of whitespace, keyboard redefinitions, 
regular expressions, more.

>
>: 5. The command line 'edit language' should be efficient ('Unixy' - NOT like
>:    TPU), so that many commands will be just as quick through the command line
>:    (e.g. <esc> p <return> for paste command - i.e. only 3 keystrokes).
>
>The only thing TPU, and VMS in general, needs is filename and command 
>completion. TPU's command language is very easy to use, and very 
>intuitive to me. I think Emacs could be a lot better. 
>
>You have command recall, something that is painful in Emacs -- to recall
>M-x comamnds, you have to open windows and do all these things that make
>it more trouble than it's worth. The up arrow is all you need in EVE.
>

editing command history is also there. 

>Also, you only have to type in a much as is significant (sav f works
>for save file) and the complete words are there if you need them.
>EVE is very well integrated to VMS, the way Emacs is to UNIX.

I think this also works in STedi, although most commands are short. I.e. 
s for save. You can also type save if you want.

>
>It's the minor inconsistencies that give me the most trouble. For example,
>in EVE (any any sensible editor), you "save file" -- but in Emacs, 
>you "save-buffer"! 
> 

Here you just 'save' :-).

[Many sugggestions deleted]

Thanks for the suggestions!  I am still collecting and pondering. Also 
thanks to others who have sent me thoughts. Any more?


> I really want to see this editor, for the Atari and for UNIX! :) 
>
>I think:

Stay in touch. Maybe soemthing can be worked out.

>
>* People should re-bind the keys any way they like. Or live with the 
>default. One reason I have never used Joe's Editor is the key bindings
>are so weird. If I had to use it (and with Emacs & vi there's no
>reason to), I'd bind it to Emacs-like keys.
>
>* provisions for key strings (like ^[[123~!-+ etc...) instead of 
>single or double keys is a must. 
>

You can define any n sequential keystrokes to perform the action(s) of
any 256 - n other keystrokes. (256 is arbitrary of course. set at
compile time.) You can also bind keys to macros of course.

>* I'd really like to aee a TPU-ish editor in UNIX... 
>

Hope I am not misrepresenting. I like TPU, and when I moved to Unix,
this was the most similar I found - emphasizing the command line and the
ease of editing in the remaining window as the defining features.

>Scott

Cheers,
 Don
Newsgroups: comp.editors