Re: [PROPOSAL DRAFT]: editor and sensible-editor
On 02-Jun-99, 06:22 (CDT), Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Policy states that programms should use $EDITOR if set and else use
> editor as the prefered editor, but why not just use sensible-editor?
>
> sensible-editor will behave as needed by the current policy, but is
> more flexible. It could start xemacs on X and zile on console or do
> other additional checks. I think policy should state that programs
> should use sensible-editor as their editor.
I just realized I'm an idiot -- I thought Goswin was proposing
"sensible-editor" as a new thing, and that sensible-editor wouldn't look
at EDITOR. A little later, a clue-brick whacked me up-side-the-head.
Instead, he's saying "why are we making all these programs do something
that sensible-editor already does, and sensible-editor is more flexible
anyway". Doh. Ignore my other e-mail.
Goswin, you're absolutely correct. The only issue is that for programs
which already have 'if (ed=getenv("EDITOR")) system(ed); else
system("editor")' or somesuch will need a Debian specific patch, but
what the hell. Ahh, the other issue is that sensible-editor is bash
specific, so that instead of simply cranking up ae (or whatever the
user selected), it will now start a bash, and then and ae....
Steve
Reply to: