Re: Zile as an emacs alternative
Nicolas Duboc <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> One of Zile users asked me to register zile as an alternative to emacs
I haven't tried zile, but I fail to see the point of such a request. If
zile is significantly different from Emacs (and I guess it is, from what
you wrote), I'd say there's no point in making users believe it is
Emacs, by virtue of the alternative trick. That would be as confusing as
The argument given in the bug report: "Perhaps that way an emacs-like
editor could be added to the base system (we already have nano/pico and
vi)" does not convince me. Whether a program can enter the base system
is completely unrelated to whether it's called Emacs or something else.
If there is a good reason to include it there, well, fine, but it will
be called zile. What is the problem?
Of course, you can (an should, if it isn't already the case) make zile
an alternative for editor(1), but that is not what you were discussing
(neither does it appear in the bug report).