/usr/bin/editor policy implementation
I quote below Dale Scheetz's list of proposed editor priorities.
Is it just me, or is the list below completely insane ? Please don't
anyone take this as an insult, it's not intended as one. It's just
that I completely fail to see what set of criteria or objectives could
lead one to the list below.
For example, `ae' and `ed' are listed at a higher priority than
`emacs'. Surely you don't mean that if only ae and emacs or only ed
and emacs are installed it would be best for programs to use ae or ed
as the default editor ?!
I don't understand why the three `vi' clones come at the top of the
list, either.
I'll deal with some of Dale's specific questions in a moment.
> elvis 120
> vim 110
> Standard ____ nvi 100
> fte 90
> jed 80
> joe 70
> * beav 60 * to be removed
> ee 50
> pico 40
> elvis-tiny 30
> Base ____ ae 20
> ed 10
> emacs 0
> * kedit -10 * possible removal
> wily -20
> axe -30
> nedit -40
> sam -50
> sex -60
> xcoral -70
> xwpe -80
>
> xemacs -100
Reply to: