[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Zile as an emacs alternative

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.


Nicolas Duboc <nduboc@debian.org>

Attachment: pgp0K1MpdvhYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: