Florent Rougon wrote: > 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 > useless. It is more or less what I thought after reading the wish report. But then I discovered that e3em (from the e3 package) is an alternative for emacs. I did not find the requirements for an editor to be an emacs alternative. But if e3em is one, I can't find any reason Zile could not be (Zile has more from emacs than just the key bindings). > 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. I agree and I do not aim at including zile in base. > Of course, you can (an should, if it isn't already the case) make zile > an alternative for editor(1) It is already. Regards, -- Nicolas Duboc <nduboc@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgp0K1MpdvhYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature